I was going to continue playing this game...

[Delily]

And? You are the one that brought Hardware being on equal grounds as an argument. I was stating that it is clearly not on equal grounds, since one is costing nearly double. And since money can be directly translated into performance (Up to a point), any piece of hardware that costs more than its equal is worse by default.

Your entire claim was that the hardware was subpar because of the price point. If I pay $200 for an I7 or I pay $300 for an I7, that has no bearing on the performance of the chips. It changes the ratio performance to cost, but as I purchased a Mac that's not a metric I am concerned with.

Ad populum means that because a mass believes it, it must be true. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, which is that MAC has problems attracting game companies and keeping their support, which is pretty much an undeniable fact. My argument is that because of this issues, anyone who has gaming in mind will play on the platform with games. This is the same thing with consoles, they only go as far as the developers make/port games to their system.

Again, with the FB/Google+ analogy, anyone who wants to go to Google+ pretty much does it out of spite to FB, love for google, desire to try something new, or they genuinely believe it to be better. But almost no one will go for it because "all their friends are there!". Likewise, no gamer will buy a Mac because "All the games are there!".

It is? The game selection on OSX may not be as expansive as Windows (currently), that much I'll agree to. I won't agree with the claim that OSX has a hard time attracting game companies, especially as it is the only desktop/laptop market with any significant growth. Blizzard released clients for OSX for all of their products, Rocksteady is releasing Arkham Knight on OSX. Searching the Steam store for games reveals over 4000 entries. There is significant interest to warrant the investment. People may not buy a Mac for gaming, but the claim that Macs are not good for gaming is simply not true any more.

It's funny because your own argument is the one invalid here. SE hasn't dropped or stopped MAC support, and I don't see why you are complaining about this case in particular. The OP wanted to double dip Windows/Mac clients, and anyone who has actually bought this game should remember there being a warning sign that it will only work for the platform you buy.

Heck, that he first chose windows over his mac out of convenience speaks volumes of the issue.

My complaint is that I fully expect SE to release functioning client for OSX. Given that the game industry has become "release crap and then patch", I should have known better.

[Kyros]

Your entire claim was that the hardware was subpar because of the price point. If I pay $200 for an I7 or I pay $300 for an I7, that has no bearing on the performance of the chips. It changes the ratio performance to cost, but as I purchased a Mac that's not a metric I am concerned with.

Yes, I am aware that Mac owners typically have no regards for money, otherwise they wouldn't be making such poor monetary decisions. Also, I never stated that the hardware would perform worse, and yes, it has everything to do with performance to cost ratio. It literally means that an equally priced Mac will always under-perform to an equally priced PC.

If your argument is "Lol, I have so much money that I'm at the point where money doesn't translate into performance anymore", then this is more an argument about wealthy people having poor value perception more than it is about a true comparison of performance.

Searching the Steam store for games reveals over 4000 entries.

This is a very poor metric actually. 12,150 for PC vs 4125 on MAC for my country, about 33%. This isn't even counting that games on steam are the most likely to have a Mac port.

And even then, how much of that 33% was released on par with the PC version, or is ported correctly, or patched simultaneously? Typically Mac games receive a port after a game is successful enough to afford it, or the company in question is big enough to do so from the begging. This are just layers upon layers of why gaming on Mac is a horrible experience, and why most Mac users just play their games on boot camp.

My complaint is that I fully expect SE to release functioning client for OSX. Given that the game industry has become "release crap and then patch", I should have known better.

This right here. This is the kind of experience anyone playing on a Mac has to deal with in almost every game, and you just spelled it out.

[Delily]

Yes, I am aware that Mac owners typically have no regards for money, otherwise they wouldn't be making such poor monetary decisions. Also, I never stated that the hardware would perform worse, and yes, it has everything to do with performance to cost ratio. It literally means that an equally priced Mac will always under-perform to an equally priced PC.

If your argument is "Lol, I have so much money that I'm at the point where money doesn't translate into performance anymore", then this is more an argument about wealthy people having poor value perception more than it is about a true comparison of performance.

As you have no idea of my financial situation, my level of financial literacy, or my reasons for purchasing an iMac, leave the ad hominem attacks and stereotypes at the door. They serve no purpose in this discussion. My point was that for my parameters, the increased cost of performance was a good tradeoff. Even with that, this argument ignores the fact that this hardware has been more than capable of playing this game at full settings for almost a year now. Ait has for many people playing through Bootcamp. The hardware is not subpar for a 2 year old game.

This is a very poor metric actually. 12,150 for PC vs 4125 on MAC for my country, about 33%. This isn't even counting that games on steam are the most likely to have a Mac port.

And even then, how much of that 33% was released on par with the PC version, or is ported correctly, or patched simultaneously? Typically Mac games receive a port after a game is successful enough to afford it, or the company in question is big enough to do so from the begging. This are just layers upon layers of why gaming on Mac is a horrible experience, and why most Mac users just play their games on boot camp.

Yes, the game catalog for OS X is not as big and Windows. Despite that, more game companies are releasing OS X versions of their games.

This right here. This is the kind of experience anyone playing on a Mac has to deal with in almost every game, and you just spelled it out.

World of Warcraft, Diablo 3, Guild Wars 2, and Bioshock Infinite all worked just fine in OS X.

[Kyros]

My point was that for my parameters, the increased cost of performance was a good tradeoff.

I am well aware that you meant you where ok with paying for this because of your preference. Which is why I moved my argument on why such preferences have no place on a performance comparison. You can not use personal preferences as an argument and then be angry when someone addresses them.

For example, I very much prefer gaming laptops over desktops because I travel a lot. But if I where to use that preference to say that gaming laptops are equal in performance than desktops I will be promptly ridiculed. It is simply not true. While they can be overkill for almost every game out there, a similarly priced Desktop will stlll outperform it. They can still be a better buy, but never because they have the best performance.

Even with that, this argument ignores the fact that this hardware has been more than capable of playing this game at full settings for almost a year now. Ait has for many people playing through Bootcamp. The hardware is not subpar for a 2 year old game.

And why would that be relevant? We are not discussing if the games can be run, but how well it can run them and if they are available at all. Of course it can run it (I would be worried if it couldn't), but an equivalent PC would run it better.

World of Warcraft, Diablo 3, Guild Wars 2, and Bioshock Infinite all worked just fine in OS X.

WoW took years for Mac. Diablo I and II require you to run an emulator to get it working on Mac, and 1 out of 3 bioshocks working isn't a great record. And this are all pretty big companies, mind you.



Our points are simple: Mac Hardware under-performs in a fair comparison, and the game selection, on top of the game experience, is severely impaired. Not only are games seldom ported over, they are usually poorly ported. Most companies do a wrapper, or update the PC version over the MAC, or simply get bugs fixed at a slower pace. What is happening right now with Mac client being terrible is a story I've heard repeated so many times before.

Heck, here's a real life example of why gaming on Mac is so terrible: Me and my friends regularly play together in a friends house. He has a Mac Pro (Yes, the Black tower monster thing), while we typically bring our laptops.

My laptop is a $750, Windows 7, i7 second generation, Geforce 610m. His Pro is the >$2500 8-core Xeon E5, running on I believe dual FirePro D500 cards.

Which computer do you think can run more games on their native system based on this specs? The answer: My crappy Laptop.

Pretty much everything we play requires him to get on Boot camp, even minecraft (Altho that one is mostly cuz we are not making 2 modpacks just for him). He loves his Mac and that's that, but this really illustrates how bad gaming on Mac OS really is.