I was going to continue playing this game...

[Delily]

On Mac hardware, which is subpar and usually not upgradeable.

My point is if you are running windows, why don't you just buy a PC?

The fact that Apple's solution to its terrible integration into the gaming community was to allow users to run Windows, is all that needs to be said.

My machine has an Intel i7 and a GTX780M with 4 Gb of ram. I've also got 8 GB of RAM. Care to explain how that's subpar?

[MythToken]

My machine has an Intel i7 and a GTX780M with 4 Gb of ram. I've also got 8 GB of RAM. Care to explain how that's subpar?

Because you overpaid, and you could have built that machine with those same specs or better for half the price.

Not to mention you will never be able to upgrade it.

Look Apple makes some beautiful machines, but they will never compete in the pc gaming market. It is why they don't even try.

[Sakei]

Because you overpaid, and you could have built that machine with those same specs or better for half the price.

How could you have built the machine? It's clearly a laptop, or an all-in-one due to the video card. How many laptops have you custom built? How many companies out there offer mac osx on their pc's?

[Delily]

Because you overpaid, and you could have built that machine with those same specs or better for half the price.

Not to mention you will never be able to upgrade it.

Look Apple makes some beautiful machines, but they will never compete in the pc gaming market. It is why they don't even try.

If I was going just for the hardware, I would agree with overpaying, however, I wanted OSX. That being said, your argument doesn't hold water, especially as Apple is swtching over to Metal in El Capitan.

What you and the rest of the "Macs are inferior" crowd don't understand is that NONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID.

Those of us using the OSX client are using the fully supported client given to us by the developer of the game. This is not us asking for support on an unsupported Wine configuration, this is the official product., sold oand advertised on the SE Store. Most of us have machines that are better than the system requirements. SE promised a fully functioning client for OSX, and they have not delivered. It is up to them to fix it, or refund us. The buck stops with them, this is their product, and it's not working properly. End of story.

[MythToken]

If I was going just for the hardware, I would agree with overpaying, however, I wanted OSX. That being said, your argument doesn't hold water, especially as Apple is swtching over to Metal in El Capitan.

Ok.

The real point being though, that you didn't expect the Mac version of the game to run on Windows or visa versa.

SE has made that very clear.

So our other arguments aside, the OP is in the wrong.

[Delily]

Ok.

The real point being though, that you didn't expect the Mac version of the game to run on Windows or visa versa.

SE has made that very clear.

So our other arguments aside, the OP is in the wrong.

Well, I'm not sure I parse that first statement correctly, but yes I agree the OP is in the wrong. SE made it very clear you had to buy a license for OSX, it's been known for months. It's the same pattern as FFXI and ARR - you need to buy a license per platform. The prices is also comparable, as it's both ARR and Heavensward, and the PC download is also $60. However, since they give you a free month's time for each new license, the actual cost is $45.

[Kyros]

The Apple Tax is about price point and not about performance.

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.

The second is argumentum ad populum, I don't care what the other companies are doing (although both WoW and D3 run just fine on OSX).

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!".

What you and the rest of the "Macs are inferior" crowd don't understand is that NONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE VALID.

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.

[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.