Hardly, buying two systems is twice the price - you probably have a windows license anyway, and if you don't they're relatively inexpensive.

"Proprietary hardware" was probably the wrong phrase. I meant "proprietary systems."
Narrower selection of hardware is limited upgradeability imo. I haven't owned a mac for several years, so what's the status on upgrading a single video card to sli/crossfire? And what about 3/4 cards? And are any of the newest generation cards supported yet (5xx, 6xxx)? Anyway from what I've seen upgrading the http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/faq/mac-pro-mid-2010-westmere-how-to-upgrade-processors.html than in a PC, and the motherboard is impossible to upgrade.
Again, haven't used Mac OSX as my main OS for several years, but back then there was very limited customization. Are there any applications that simulate the win7 superbar for OSX? I used to prefer the OSX dock and used objectdock with windows, but when I switched to win7 I fell in love with the superbar's nice mix of simplicity and function. Still, it's nice to know that I can use a clone of the osx dock if I want to. Also when I owned a mac I never figured out how to choose the installation directory for dmg installers.
Yeah, I forgot it's possible to develop iPhone apps on windows now. But to say that Apple's attitude towards it hasn't been restrictive is just crazy.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1153069-anyone-use-a-mac-or-plan-to-for-skyrim/page__p__16874707#entry16874707

A dev answered my post on about MACs.

I don't think they'll have a MAC port but bootcamp seems to be the solution,

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I don't mean price-wise, but in actual utilization. You have to maintain both Windows and OSX separately, update the drivers separately, manage programs separately, and you need to upgrade both OSs separately as they become outdated. Windows looks and feels different than OSX, and you can't run Windows apps and OSX apps at the same time (in that sense, its even worse than two physically separate systems).

The price of having to buy Windows and its upgrades is just another issue on top of it. I wouldn't believe the majority of Mac users (especially those that don't use bootcamp already) would also have an up-to-date version of Windows. A Mac is expensive enough as it is.

If Skyrim's released on Steam they should be on the clear. Of coarse I don't use Steam and don't know what their doing with it on the Mac front so I'm not the one to ask.

Also, whilst we're on the subject,

If we take a look at the latest iMacs or Macbook Pro's.

Using bootcamp, what sort of settings are we looking at?

Low/Medium/High?

Also comparative to xbox360. Anyone have any idea if the current iMacs/Pro's would be better or equivalent to console?

Cheers,

Oh, well, while I have no experience of maintaining an OS X system, it's painless and mostly automated on windows, so that's really no major concern. Hard drive space may be a valid concern - but it's 2011, why are we still worrying about hard drive space?

Assuming OS X is your general-use system and windows is for gaming, the limitations of not being able to run applications on the other system is unimportant - and for non-gaming uses a VM may be a better solution, and that *will* allow you to run both OS' applications at once. A quick google shows W7HP at ￡65 - or a little over the cost of a new game. Seems reasonable enough to me, and hardly going to break the bank - if it were you wouldn't be buying a mac.

@DeSetuede; The 13" or low-end 15" likely won't run it at all, the high end 15" and 17" should run it perfectly - at least if I'm reading these spec sheets right.

It depends. I suppose Windows isn't too hard to keep updated if you use Windows Update. But if you need things like OpenGL drivers or something WU doesn't provide, you need to go hunting around. Not hard, but not necessary, either.


Other people may feel different, but I don't really like having wasted HD space. I myself use a 150 GB drive, or there-abouts, and as long as I keep unused apps and files cleaned off, I have no problems with space (despite having hobbies that like to use up disk space). I may need more space eventually, but as it is right now, I'm fine. Compare that to people who keep "running out" and need 1+TB drives...


I don't know about that. Personally, I leave my IM, IRC, and email clients on while playing games... mainly just in case someone needs to contact me with something important, but apparently some people like to actively chat while they play, too. If you're modding, you may also want quick access to a web browser, paint program, modeller, and whatever else (I realize the Creation Kit itself wouldn't likely be ported, but that's where Wine would help; having a native port of the game would still be a great boon even if the CK needs "help", as it were).


I thought only the more expensive, non-Home versions were allowed to be used in a VM?

Well, for real graphics cards, like any you'd get in a mac for gaming, finding drivers isn't going to be an issue, and generally they'll have the framework to auto-update themselves. I hardly think that having windows installed for gaming counts as a waste - it has plenty of purpose, after all!

I can relate to your third point, I myself do the same, I suppose you could set up clients on each OS, or use a crossplatform client and share the same configs, or do as I do and run it all on a seperate server and ssh in - then you just need a client! But yes, that is a concern. Not un-overcomable, though. As the for the latter point, I'm really, really tempted to say "Who cares?", however, I don't believe so. I am not certain whether a virtual install counts towards your allowed physical install limit, what with it being on the same machine, however.

I wasn't aware nVidia and AMD drivers update themselves. I though you needed to get updates from their respective websites if you weren't using WU for them?


But that's the thing. Using Windows (under bootcamp or whatever) defeats the purpose of having a Mac. You can use the same argument for not needing a PS3 version, because the 360 can run it and a bunch of other things, too. Or why any console versions at all since most people have a Windows PC.

The answer is because the 360, PS3, Windows, Mac, or Linux is the player's platform of choice. These platforms are more than capable of handling the game and there are plenty of willing buyers, so it is not fair (IMO) to ask them to switch to another platform. It's not like we're asking for special treatment (or even equal treatment; it's understandable the CK be Windows-only since it wasn't designed for us -- as long as mods made with it can be used on platforms that allow it... but I digress).


Sure, it can be overcome, but wouldn't the easiest solution be to just go native?

No matter what, they have to spend a fair amount of time on each system that they release the game on. Let's say they developed Skyrim for 360, PS3, PC, Mac, and Linux. The console editions would sell the most copies, followed by PC, then Mac would make up a small percentage of sales, and Linux would make up the smallest percentage of sales. Why does it make sense to spend a lot of time developing the game for two platforms that won't even sell a lot of copies, especially when people who use either of those platforms could play the windows version of the game without buying any new hardware?

Because the methods of playing the Windows version on non-Windows systems are imperfect, buggy, and sub-optimal. Wine tends to have compatibility and performance issues, particularly with its direct3d->opengl translation (and doesn't yet support d3d10 or d3d11, though AMD's and nVidia's drivers do support those features in OpenGL). You won't get much better short of switching to Windows, so users tend to need more powerful hardware to get the same performance as on Windows. Bootcamp's drawbacks have already been mentioned. Having native Mac and Linux versions will provide a better end-product to users of those platforms, which will help convince more people to buy, and help increase customer loyalty.

To add, there are competent people that can be contracted to do the actual ports, if Bethesda doesn't want to do it themself. Even if it takes a few extra weeks or months after the release of the Windows version to get a native version, I'm sure people will be happy enough to get a good port in a timely fashion.

Would be nice, but until OSX gets a very large share in the OS market, it's not happening.

Besides, I'd much prefer a Linux port.

Earlier you said:

You can't really equate requiring users to buy different hardware with requiring users to buy different software. So you can't run your mac programs in the background? So what, get some windows equivalents. It's not like you're going to be running FCP while playing Skyrim.
Also, as far as defeating the purpose of having a Mac, did you really buy your mac so that you could play the majority of games natively on it?

Personally I have win7 and ubuntu as a dual boot on my computer and I have a hackintosh vm for a few occasional tasks. I simply accept the fact that ubuntu will never be my primary gaming OS. Besides, if hard drive space is the problem, you should look at how cheap big HDDs are getting.

I'm a PC user by preference, though I do have experience with OSX. In essence, Macs are more expensive for the same level of performance, but they are slightly more reliable than a lot of major PC manufacturers. That's no fault of Microsoft I'd warrant, but a factor nonetheless. When it comes to gaming, however, Windows is simply the stronger platform. It's not always a matter of simply changing some lines of code in games, but consider the underlying software they run on. DirectX is used by Microsoft, and OpenGL is used by everyone else. It requires extensive porting to turn a DirectX-based game into OpenGL. Converting a lot of effects, shaders, properties, and so forth. Then it needs to be an OSX application, working natively with the OS, and so forth. It's not impossible. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. But this situation has created a divide between the platforms. You can either make a game for Windows and have it sell well, or make a game for OSX and have it sell poorly. People never make OSX exclusive games if they want to earn money from them. Developers now are starting the trend of making games for both, not because they think OSX is a significant market, but because they want to turn it into one. You can't tempt people to buy Macs as gaming systems if there aren't any games for it.

But if it's truly going to catch on, Apple needs to ease up on hardware restrictions and allow people to build their own Macs. A good chunk of gaming PC's are custom made because it makes them cheaper. If Apple was to make a comparable build and release it, I don't think you'd see much cheaper than $5,000.



His words hold some merit. Not because iPods work better with Macs (which they do to an extent, but you can get a perfectly adequate experience using Windows. Apple still wants to make money from non-Mac users) but because the OS X platform was saved only by the success of the iPod. You can thank brand loyalty. iPods (and as a result, iPhones) are Apple's biggest source of income, and had they not invented them, they may never have gotten out of their financial rut. But iPods have gotten Apple's name out there, and it became cool to have an iPod. As a teen when iPods first came out, it was cool to have one and show it off. Then when you go buy laptops (because every student gets a laptop) you buy from Apple because you want to be different and because you love your iPod so much. Apple's Desktop market is inefficient financially, but they don't need those to make money anymore.

http://www.joshmcculloch.com/blog/uploaded_images/Apple-760449.jpg

I don't think the Mac OS could run Skyrim. Bootcamp sounds like the only way.

In both cases, you're buying a system you don't want to be able to play a game you do want, even though the system you do have is capable of handling it.


Saying "Just use Windows" doesn't solve the problem of needing to use Windows.


I personally use Linux. I did not switch to it to be able to play games, but that doesn't mean I don't want to play games on it... I very much do, and am more than willing to fork over cash to do it. I'm hardly the only one who feels the same way, and the system is more than capable of playing it.


Linux is my only gaming OS, since I don't use Windows. I recognize it's not as good of a gaming OS as Windows, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't work to improve the situation.

...which needs to be done anyway for PS3. Windows can use OpenGL too, BTW. The only system, out of those previously listed, that can't use OpenGL is the 360 (but even there, I hear there's some "unofficial" ways to do it).

High end 15 inch MBP should run Skyrim pretty well.

This thread might give some useful information: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1102639

Valid point. I forgot that the PS3 uses OpenGL because it's linux-based, slipped my mind.

My point still stands (though less fortified) about the platform divide though. Most of the money will be made selling games to PC users because there are a lot more of them, and OS X rigs that can support current or next-gen games are the minority of Mac sales. When making a game for computers, PC is the way to go if you want to earn money. What Valve is doing, and what they're trying to get more developers to do, is to port their games to Mac not because it's financially viable, but they think it's a good future investment to create the market they hope to capitalize on.

I just wish Apple would ease up on the closed-in nature of OS X. You can't build your own Mac gaming rig unless you go through all of the trouble of bending the rules to make a Hackintosh. I also wish more games supported Linux, though that's an even smaller minority of users. I love Windows, but Linux is close to my heart.

On a side note, my 3D Animation professor, an avid Mac user, talks all the time about how Macs started modern-day 3D gaming with Myst. I saw Myst on Steam, and pointed out how ironic it is that it's PC-only, despite the fact that Steam supports OS X.

Forget macs and all their [censored]. Instead port it to linux so I don't have to dual boot!

Yeah honestly I will never see Mac as a legitimate gaming platform until they open up their hardware support and let people install OSX on custom built PCs. I don't have any problem with devs making games for linux, though it really doesn't make any business sense at this point.

Obviously Windows is going to be the biggest chunk in the desktop market, and that won't likely change for the foreseeable future. But that doesn't mean there isn't money to be made elsewhere. No one's saying they shouldn't develop for Windows. We'd just like Mac and Linux versions in addition to that.

they wont because macs are such a small percentage of the market and the mac heads i know dont even play that many games. even the games they do play tend to be those pretty little princess shopping games. even top of the line macs only come with mediocre hardware. you definitely are paying for the OS and design when you by mac.

as for steam releasing mac games i hope they keep it up. im not getting a mac but any addition to the computer gamers numbers increases the odds of games being designed around PC first and then console isntead of how its done now. :twirl:

as for alternate OS. i tried out that linux redhat but i got sick of having to "patch" different programs to work. also its nigh impossible to make directX games to work right, and thats a huge issue for me since im a PC gamer. ultimately i couldnt justify having 20 some GB of my harddrive being utilized in my dual boot set up that i hardly ever used so i ended up scrapping it.

It just comes down to the company's own considerations. There are probably a lot of factors that go into doing these than we know of. Oftentimes, developers will pay other studios to handle ports. That's must cost money. What do you do for physical media? Will a single disk work for all systems, or do you need to make separate versions for each? Do you need to pay extra for promotion? Do you need to hire more people to handle system support for these different platforms?

At the end of it all, is your financial return greater than the costs of doing it? Who knows. Obviously it's a risky venture, or else more people than Valve and the occasional indie dev would attempt it. It's regrettable that Linux isn't supported, I'd probably use it. But I think there are still some benefits to maintaining a primary platform for PC gaming. It's more standardized (plus Windows supports DirectX, which no one else does), and you don't need to worry about system compatibility if they will all work on this one system. That is the consideration one makes when looking to buy a rig for gaming. OpenGL seems like it would facilitate better standards though, unless Microsoft wants to release DirectX for more platforms.