About a Mac version: Some numbers from (yes) Steam

All Macintoshes since Early 09 have graphics chips or cards, and they are all better than the new Intel integrated graphics

Unfortunately, 'all macs bought in the past 16 months being able to run the game' isn't enough of a market for most game companies. A PC user with a 5 year old computer can spend $120 for a GPU that will run modern games on average settings, and a Mac user needs a whole new system.


EmpireOfCats said:
There is a reason they use MacPros to render movies.

Macs haven't been used to do anything graphics or audio related in industry for years.


We could argue about the merits and demerits of Macs all day, but the reality is that Macs aren't designed to run games - which the software industry clearly recognizes. Maybe that will change in the next few years if OpenGL gets better and Apple consistently makes computers that have actual GPUs, but for now, you'll just have to wait a year or two for the Mac version to come out.
 
Unfortunately, 'all macs bought in the past 16 months being able to run the game' isn't enough of a market for most game companies. A PC user with a 5 year old computer can spend $120 for a GPU that will run modern games on average settings, and a Mac user needs a whole new system.




Macs haven't been used to do anything graphics or audio related in industry for years.


We could argue about the merits and demerits of Macs all day, but the reality is that Macs aren't designed to run games - which the software industry clearly recognizes. Maybe that will change in the next few years if OpenGL gets better and Apple consistently makes computers that have actual GPUs, but for now, you'll just have to wait a year or two for the Mac version to come out.

All MacBook Pros have enough power, Mac Pros, (intel) iMacs too
MacBooks and Mac minis, probably not

You know you can just buy a better graphics card for Macs right? Mac Pros can hold up to (IIRC) 2xRadeon 4870s, and iMacs can hold a Radeon 4870

Final Cut Pro is used in the Movie industry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#Major_films_edited_with_Final_Cut_Pro)

Apple/Radeon/Nvidia are working on better video card drivers (Steam got them going)
 
Maybe that will change in the next few years if OpenGL gets better and Apple consistently makes computers that have actual GPUs, but for now, you'll just have to wait a year or two for the Mac version to come out.

Wow. Where have you been all year?

This is coming to you from a MacBook Pro with an i5-520M (dual core, four logical cores because of hyperthreading). It has two (in numbers: 2) GPUs: The first GPU is the on-die Intel HD graphics that is part of the CPU package, and uses so little power that I can confirm, to my own amazement, that Apple's usually inflated claims of battery time are true till at least till the eight-hour mark (Apple marketing claims up to ten hours). The second GPU is a NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M with 256 MByte GDDR3 RAM, an "actual GPU", as you put it. Depending on demand, OS X switches from one GPU to the other transparently.

As for the claim here that Macs aren't used in graphics or TV, let me quote the Wikipedia (my emphasis):

From the early 2000s, Final Cut Pro developed a large and expanding user base including many independent filmmakers. It has made inroads with film and television editors who have traditionally used Avid Technology's Media Composer. According to a 2007 SCRI study, Final Cut made up 49% of the US professional editing market, with Avid at 22%

As for waiting two or more years for OS X versions: The 90s are over. Blizzard of course has always released both versions in tandem, and you might have heard that Valve has ported Steam to the Mac. You can even check their statistics page to see what hardware the Mac users are coming to the board with. They have some info out on their initial experiences, like that a game is five times as likely to crash on a PC than on a Mac.

Also, and here we get to the point where you are correct, the games on Macs are slightly slower at the moment. This is not a hardware problem at all, but the result of Apple's drivers being optimized for stability instead of gaming. Apple and Valve are both working on this full throttle, and in a few months at most, this problem will be history in the same way the PowerPC chip and one button mouse are now. Currently, Valve has released Portal, HalfLife 2, and Team Fortress 2 for the Mac -- Wednesday is release day -- all games that are slightly older. P and HL2 run fine and fast and in native resolution on this MacBook Pro.

Where does this leave us with Firaxis? Well, at the moment, they are missing the trend. Industry sales for PC are deceptive, because the include sales to companies, computers which will never see a game in their life. Mac sales are beyond strong, which is one reason why Apple surpassed Microsoft in stock market valve a few weeks ago (don't know where they are now). Software development systems are to the point where creating both versions in parallel should be automatic -- Valve claims that each and every build spits out a Windows and OS X version. This is not rocket science.

On a more personal level, Civ V will be the only game left I am interested in that I would have to reboot for (L4D, L4D2 and Portal 2 are from Valve; StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 are from Blizzard; Diablo 2 and Master of Orion 2 run on Windows in VirtualBox). Keeping a Windows partition around only for one single game is a lot to ask, especially if it turns out that my worries about Civ V are confirmed.
 
All MacBook Pros have enough power, Mac Pros, (intel) iMacs too
MacBooks and Mac minis, probably not

You know you can just buy a better graphics card for Macs right? Mac Pros can hold up to (IIRC) 2xRadeon 4870s, and iMacs can hold a Radeon 4870

Final Cut Pro is used in the Movie industry
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#Major_films_edited_with_Final_Cut_Pro)

Apple/Radeon/Nvidia are working on better video card drivers (Steam got them going)
Hey, my Macbook is running quiet a few games, all at highest possible settings. BTW does anybody really know the requirements?
 
I can't imagine that any recent mac wouldn't be able to run CiV at pretty high settings, if not the highest settings. While it remains true that mac can't touch PCs for gaming at the bleeding edge of gaming performance, CiV will be *far* from bleeding edge (or even the cutting edge).

So mac owners who are primarily interested in CiV should be fine.
 
Hey, my Macbook is running quiet a few games, all at highest possible settings. BTW does anybody really know the requirements?

If Civ V is coming out on Steam for Mac, then I don't think we really have to worry about it. Unless you have an older Mac. I just bought mine last August/September, so I'm fairly confidant mine can handle it.
 
If Civ V is coming out on Steam for Mac, then I don't think we really have to worry about it. Unless you have an older Mac. I just bought mine last August/September, so I'm fairly confidant mine can handle it.
pretty cool eh?

Well if Steam is as important as they say then it certainly saves time
 
OpenGL is catching up

Weak? Maybe not the latest and greatest, but MacBook Pros and iMacs can wield i5s and i7s. Mac Pros wield at least Quad Xeons... When Apple releases the better drivers they will be up to par

turns out the Mac Pros (essentially) have one or two i7s
 
Apple has released its quarterly results, and guess what (my emphasis):

Apple sold 3.47 million Macs during the quarter, representing a new quarterly record and a 33 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.

Ah, another quarter with double-digit growth. You will remember the link in a different thread that desktop penetration has now reached ten percent and is climbing further. Not only does this prove that Truth and Beauty win in the end, it also shows (again) that Firaxis is making a big mistake not providing a Mac version out of the box.

I might have mentioned that a couple of times before. But don't worry, once StarCraft 2 is out in a few days, I probably won't be spending that much time here anymore -- you see, Blizzard produces the OS X version in parallel. As does Valve, by the way.

C'mon, Firaxis, this sort of thing is not high on the tech tree any more. We don't want a late, crappy port. We want it directly from the source.
 
I dunno about completely native, a properly done port could use regular mods
 
Some more numbers on Macs, showing why Firaxis is making a very big mistake by not giving us an OS X version of Civ V right from the beginning and out of the box:

http://www.tuaw.com/2010/08/05/mac-usage-surges-amongst-university-of-virginia-freshmen/

"According to the University of Virginia's Information Technology and Communication (ITC), which services the IT needs for most of the campus, 43 percent of first-year students at its residence halls during 2009 were using a Mac."

Take a look at the graph to see the trend that Valve decided they wanted to be part of when they released Steam for OS X and Firaxis is missing. I'd say college students are one of the primary target demographics for a games company.
 
I prefer PCs, and being a computer geek, know how to use and maintain one, so mine runs beautifully.

I've worked with and done support for Macs and anyone who thinks Macs don't get viruses or have hardware or software issues is living in a dream world.

It's nice that there's variety so different types of users can get the computer that suits them.

PC games are expensive to create and for anything that's not a sure hit they're risky to create from a financial standpoint. So, if you're creating games, you are going to create for the platform with 89% share, not the platform with 11% (if using those steam figures, keeping in mind that Steam is hardly measuring everything, all knowing, all inclusive, but the fact is that gaming on Macs overall is nowhere near as huge as on PCs). For most game devs, spending the extra money to create a Mac version and hoping it pays for itself is probably statistically a bad investment.
 
For most game devs, spending the extra money to create a Mac version and hoping it pays for itself is probably statistically a bad investment.

Only for those who don't have the right tools set up. The trick is to develop both games in sync at the same time (Valve, Blizzard) instead of doing it the 80s way: Write a game for the PC and then port it.
 
I prefer PCs, and being a computer geek, know how to use and maintain one, so mine runs beautifully.

I've worked with and done support for Macs and anyone who thinks Macs don't get viruses or have hardware or software issues is living in a dream world.

It's nice that there's variety so different types of users can get the computer that suits them.

PC games are expensive to create and for anything that's not a sure hit they're risky to create from a financial standpoint. So, if you're creating games, you are going to create for the platform with 89% share, not the platform with 11% (if using those steam figures, keeping in mind that Steam is hardly measuring everything, all knowing, all inclusive, but the fact is that gaming on Macs overall is nowhere near as huge as on PCs). For most game devs, spending the extra money to create a Mac version and hoping it pays for itself is probably statistically a bad investment.

and if you could spend under $200,000 to hit that last 11%?
 
Seriously, though, is anybody using CrossOver to game? How about CrossOver to run PC games through Steam. I don't want to waste HD space on Windows (actually I don't have it to spare--can you Boot Camp from an external HD?).

I just got one of the new 13" Pros and I do NOT want to wait for the Mac port in 2012.
 
Yes, you can bootcamp via external, Crossover Games had really good support for Civ IV, also Western Digital has 1TB 2.5" drives
 
Apple has released its quarterly results, and guess what (my emphasis):

Apple sold 3.47 million Macs during the quarter, representing a new quarterly record and a 33 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter.

Ah, another quarter with double-digit growth. You will remember the link in a different thread that desktop penetration has now reached ten percent and is climbing further. Not only does this prove that Truth and Beauty win in the end, it also shows (again) that Firaxis is making a big mistake not providing a Mac version out of the box.

I might have mentioned that a couple of times before. But don't worry, once StarCraft 2 is out in a few days, I probably won't be spending that much time here anymore -- you see, Blizzard produces the OS X version in parallel. As does Valve, by the way.

C'mon, Firaxis, this sort of thing is not high on the tech tree any more. We don't want a late, crappy port. We want it directly from the source.

Do you really want apple to hold the majority share? From my experience the compaines that control the market loose the inovation and dedication that got them there in the first place. As a mac user I'd be quite happy if Apple never increased their market share. I dont want them to become the next Microsoft......
 
Do you really want apple to hold the majority share? From my experience the compaines that control the market loose the inovation and dedication that got them there in the first place. As a mac user I'd be quite happy if Apple never increased their market share. I dont want them to become the next Microsoft......

one of the mixed bags about Apple is it doesn't give a damn what others think
 
Top Bottom