Okay, okay, so it's only one game that I've found so far, but Heroes of Might and Magic V is Intel-only. From the Apple Store page:



Emphasis on the processor requirement. For those of you without Mactels, what do you think? Are they fools for releasing an Intel-only game? Personally I'm not too worried as I have a Mactel, but there are still quite a few PPC Macs out there.

Discuss.

Well, it needed to happen eventually, just so porting could become easier, though it seems a tad early with all the G5's still out there and not particularly slow. I didn't think it was that hard to make both versions if you're working in Xcode. And either way, you still have to port all the Direct3D code to OpenGL (which I imagine is anything but easy).

Then again, maybe byteswapping issues are harder than I think they are? And god knows PPC games have tended to be very poorly optimized.

This doesn't surprise me. Intel has consistently proven itself to be a maker of far better gaming chips than the G series PPC chips. Secondly, Mac still isn't a gaming OS, and it won't become one in the near future. People with PPC macs are probably not using them to game, so it's really not all that important.

Anyway, that's all cool.

It's not that the chips are better, it's that game engines are specifically optimized for the architecture. G5's are plenty fast, and I think it's quite possible to get games running well on them.

Seems a bit early to start putting intel-only stuff out. If I were them, I'd have waited until at least 5 years after the first Intelmac was released.

Of course not Mispeled, Ambrosia is an exception, usually games won't run on older than two-year-old hardware, and for some demanding ones it's only one year. Intel Macs have begun shipping in January of this year, and this game won't ship until february 2007, though admittedly the last G5 PowerMac that were still being sold in August are far from obsolete, so this game is early, but just because it's the first one. And it does cause additionnal work to code for PowerPC too, especially when coming from Windows, as Brad said here. Now, five years can be a figure for all other software (utilities and such, except perhaps demanding ones), though I'll rather estimate it to four years.

I had noticed this already after checking the Apple Games review of a completely minor game I happen to be particularly involved with; I wondered "Well, I know the Universal symbol, but what the heck does that new symbol means? Oh, sh*t." Oh and I have a MacBook, but I bought it only because as a programmer, I needed to test Universal versions of my stuff.

But at any rate, don't you worry, I have (tadaa!) Intel Required! If Intel-only apps incorporate this mini PowerPC app, then it'll warn the user when running it that the app normally runs only on Intel Macs. Then you know you need to go to the Apple Store and update your Mac, and problem solved!

ouch, that sucks. At least I have almost convinced my dad to get a MacBook.

What's more irritating than games already going Intel-only (and it's pretty premature - I don't think the installed userbase of game-capable Intel Macs is enough to support Heroes V) is the increasing prevalence of Intel integrated graphics on the Mac platform. The best game any Mac with that is going to be running is Warcraft 3.

So the potential market for Heroes V isn't carved down to just Intel Macs, it's carved down to those who bought iMacs, Mac Pros, or MacBook Pros within the past year.

The move to Intel has increased demand for Macs significantly, and I can certainly see why after getting a MacBook Pro of my own, but I can't imagine there are enough recent buyers of those specific machines who are also interested in gaming who are also interested in the Might & Magic franchise to support this port.

Then again, maybe making it Intel-only is making the port so cheap it doesn't matter. Who knows?

Ah, screw Heroes of Might and Magic, Intel guys can have that. The main problem is that by moving to Intel Macs for gaming exclusively, you cut off a whole load of older games that are still great to play, but won't run on Intel machines for various reasons (no Classic, no UB, etc.). Think Halo here for example, great game, but sucks badly in the UB version. Think Gooball, was my favorite game for weeks and months, can't play on Intel.

Bottom line: I can't imagine many people maintaining a PPC Mac and a Macintel at the same time. I can imagine those people to be pissed.

Because we all know how supportive Apple was of customers who wanted to run 68k software when they upgraded to a PPC, or Mac OS software when they upgraded to OS X.

As far as Steve Jobs is concerned, each new generation of Apple technology comes with a complimentary dildo- if you don't like it you can go f*ck yourself.

I disagree; I used my G4 iMac up until the day I got my MacBook Pro, and I probably used it as much for gaming as for anything else. There are certainly many more PC gamers, but I suspect a significant portion of people with Macs at home, Intel and PPC, use them for gaming.


I'm not the first to say it and I won't be the last, but please don't confuse "best" game with "most computationally intensive" game.




This is a problem, but Halo is running fine for me. I'd also be in a bind if it weren't for SheepShaver, an OS 9 emulator I've got running mostly for Marathon-related development. T'would be nice if Apple made it easier to get an emulator working.


Wait, why? If they have both they can play old and new games, PPC-only, Universal, or Intel-only.

Too expensive would be my guess. The new Intel Macs don't come cheap, and neither did the PPC ones, for that matter. Doing that is spending possibly upwards of $3,000 (assuming you want good video and sound cards, and a good amount of RAM on each machine) to play all the games, when most of the good ones are available for Windows anyway. If you like seious gaming that much, Mac just isn't for you. I don't mean to blast the Mac platform like all those idiotic fanboys, but nevertheless, it is true.

Wha!? That's not cool.

As for the game from the topic, I don't play it so I don't mind it's Intelness.

If this trend continues, I won't be too worried. I'm thinking in terms of MacBook for college next year. My eMac G4 won't make it to college, but having a backup PPC machine at home will be nice.

I was also planning on putting UB Halo on said future MacBook. Not cool if it doesn't work well. Once Halo 2 for Vista and Vista come out, I'll throw them both on this MacBook. That'll be a nice set up.

But, of course, if I get this MacBook, it'll be strictly for schoolwork.

eh. It was bound to happen, but I'll have one by the time any good intel-only games come out, I think.

Sorry, but the MacBook is not powerful enough for Vista or Halo 2. You would need the Pro, and with the best graphics card it has.

He said Halo, not Halo 2. And don't spread FUD, because Vista certainly works on a MacBook.

1. FUD?

2. The MacBook has a 64 MB integrated graphics controller. It barely meets the minimum specs for Vista. It will be able to run Vista Home Basic, but not Premium with Aero. And Basic is going to suck so much there is basically no point in running it, so you would be much better off with Premium... or even XP, to be honest. A MacBook Pro (is this what you were thinking of?) will easily be able to run Premium with all the prettiness and features due to a 256 MB dedicated card (stated minimum for Vista being 128 MB, recommended, 256. The 64 MB of shared memory in the MacBook is just enough to squeak by as long as you don't use Aero.)

3. I thought he said Halo 2.



I think "them both" refers to Halo and Halo 2.

Actually it is only with the Core 2 micro-architecture that Intel chips can rival an equivilent PPC chip

FUD= fear, uncertainty, and doubt (c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt)

I was under the impression that the ATI chip in the MacBook Pro was actually a top-of-the-line mobile processor. My college roommate has one, so I'll check it out when I go back.

The PPC chips used to blow away anything Intel had by a wide margin. At this point, that is not so, but when PPC chips were actually current, they were better than Intel chips. It was not that the chips were worse than Intel, it's that the programming written was better for Intel.


The best game it's going to run is Warcraft 3? That means it can run pretty much everything, right? I can't think of anything better than that...
As someone said earlier in this thread, you are confusing complexity (code-wise, the game has plenty of features and elements, like Nova, when looked at from the user's point of view) and difficulty to run with quality.

As was said, Fear Uncertainty Doubt.


I didn't mean the MBP, and if you've forgotten, the GMA 950 can use up to 224 megabytes of RAM under Windows. So that more than triples the usage, if you look at it that way.


Well, you have me there. *shrugs*

I think "them both" refers to Vista and Halo 2. But that's just me.

Oops...

Seems like I caused an explosion.


Poo. Well, they have a couple months to upgrade them before I buy. I might go Pro though, now that I think about it. It really depends on where I go to college and how much I'll need to pay for college.


It does. Halo 2 for PC will supposedly require Vista. Not cool.

It does, because Vista runs DirectX 10. Halo 2 for computer requires DX 10 and XP doesn't support it.



Actually, I think he means Vista and Halo 2: "Halo 2 for Vista", "and Vista"

I was sort of curious if anyone would call me on that actually.

The fact of the matter is though, that Intel Macs can't run older games the greatest because they're all for Classic or not UB. And of the ones that aren't UB, most work 95% fine in Rosetta, and the rest are hopelessly broken or too slow. (Case in point: EV Nova or Pop-Pop.) Hell, Warcraft 3 even kinda sucks in Rosetta.

So I meant it quite literally, though perhaps I should have substituted WC3 with another game that currently runs like native.

The depressing fact is, that Intel graphics is hopelessly under the minimum reqs of almost every game coming out nowadays except perhaps Tetris, and I'm not knocking games like that, but I don't think that is what the discussion is about. There are a ton of great older games (better than WC3) you could run for sure on a MacBook.... if it didn't have an Intel processor.

I run EVN without any trouble at all. It's far faster than my iBook, that's for sure.

Halo 2 will not use DX 10.

Weird. On my MacBook Pro I get like 15 fps, and waiting for the menu animation to finish is a very painful process. Worse than my 500 MHz iBook for sure. Windows version runs a lot better.

The Halo thing is just an example of a half-arsed UB that you actually get charged for. Arstechnica had a piece comparing Halo xBox, PC, Mac-PPC and Mac-UB a while ago, and the UB-version really stood out in terms of graphical glitches, features lacking and poor performance.

And an emulator may be fine for Marathon development, but since it's just an emulator, more demanding stuff is bound to crawl.I not only don't have the desk space to fit another behemoth like my Quad's casing (maybe ontop of each other, that'd look nifty), I also don't have the time to keep two machines updated, and I finally don't feel like switching keyboard and screen between two computers, plug in the G5, boot it, only to play a level of Gooball. Did I mention the electricity bill? Oh right, I also don't have another 3000 bucks for a MacPro.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not expecting porting houses like Aspyr to assign ridiculous amounts of man-hours to PPC-ports of games that the QuadG5 can't run. I'm also not delusional about the speed of obsolescence in these matters. What I'm pissed about is them already beginning to completely ignoring the large installed base of G5s and even G4s that can run today's games satisfactorily. People are ready to pay them money. Maybe not for crap like Heroes of Might and Whatever, but I know that I've actually gone out and been buying games, as a lot of people have. Not for very much longer, obviously, at least not from the apparently set date of mid-2007 'till my Quad really becomes too slow for actual use sometime in 2013.

The simple fact is that PPC machines of today are fast enough to run the games of today on highest settings, the games of tomorrow on high settings and the games of 2008, 2009 on mid to low settings. All not taking possible upgrade paths for G5s into account.

Yep I get the same problem :-/

Running an iMac, 2 gigs of RAM... A fix would be nice, as its put me off playing. Or make it a UB

The MBPs seem to all have problems with EVN – every single time I can recall of someone saying "it doesnt' work with my Mactel" on here it's someone with an MBP. I have a MacBook and generally get 45-47 fps.

Regarding the above…

Perhaps Aspyr is trying to help push adoption of Intel machines? Though I must admit I don't understand why HMMV is off-limits for PPC Macs.

QUOTE

Halo 2 will not use DX 10.

My bad. The NVidea magazine said otherwise.

There were a lot of conflicting reports, but Bungie recently confirmed that it will only use DX9. I was kind of mad about that, because it doesn't need Vista, but it is still going to be Vista-only.

There's half a dozen games out now (most prominently Age of Empires 3) that "require" Windows XP for no apparent reason. There are third-party patches available. If Halo 2 doesn't need any super-duper DirectX 10 Wootle shaders, then it ought to run on XP, probably even 2k.

Well, this makes me feel a little more justified in my plan to get an intel-based PowerMac this next summer. I'll be keeping the PPC though, be sure of that.

Small heads up: statements like that make your screen name appear apt. The Heroes of Might & Magic franchise is big, and very well-loved (lameness of Heroes 4 notwithstanding). Heroes V is a damn good game. (And could also run perfectly good on a G5.)

But I already own it for Windows for $20 less than the Mac version, and with presumably greater availability of patches and expansions. Which is, IMHO, the biggest problem with Mac gaming (aside from the fact that a huge proportion of my all-time favorite games, along with ones that I play the most at the moment like Half-Life 2 or Oblivion will never see the light of day on a Mac). I particularly love it when multiplayer isn't cross-platform compatible, and the Mac side of things is a ghost town.

To be honest, it's just a game (or series of games). If one simply doesn't play games of that particular genre it's quite possible to be without knowledge of the series. Besides, HoMM 5 isn't that good in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't buy it, and HoMM 3 is still my personal favourite.

HoMM 3 is definitely still "the" game, but I was only disappointed by H5 in the matter of flavor (which they still got mostly right). Gameplay seemed just as solid or even improved in several respects. The campaign does suck, but I haven't played a Heroes of M&M game yet that didn't have a fairly braindead campaign. (I remember 3 basically became impossible as soon as you hit the second tier, and I couldn't even begin to give a damn about the story...)

I don't want to make a big deal out of, I just wanted to make sure that there was no confusion over the fact that Heroes V isn't just a "whatever" game. I've found it to be quite good myself.

And who is the distributor for both AoE3 and Halo 2, and would like to use them to sell their OSes?

Well, then your game has a publicity problem, because I had never even heard about it until this thread.

Same .

I've been a PC gamer for a long time now, and the Heroes franchise is well-enough known on that side of things. It's not like a lot of people play any more, but the average enthusiast would at least have heard of them. Absolutely top of the list of "just another turn" games. Perhaps I was overestimating the popularity of these games on the Mac?

Which brings up an interesting point that perhaps Mac users are not as a whole very interested in gaming. I don't imagine MacSoft (or was it MacPlay?) shot themselves in the foot with the publicity for the (quite decent I might add) ports if Heroes III and Heroes III complete. I remember seeing ads in Macworld back in the day.

Anyway, the ultimate point is I was irritated to see one of my favorite franchises referred to as "or whatever". Playing Mac games and having missed them I'll grant (God knows some still manage to fall through the cracks somehow, despite the fact that there are so few to keep track of on a daily basis), but there's no excuse if you're into turn-based games at all.

Oh and do play Heroes III if you get the chance. Mac version is OS 9 only, but still. Really fantastically good game.

Apparently Cyan and Gametap are finally releasing Uru for Mac, and it's also going to be intel-only.

OpenGL????
No. Darn it.

More updates:

Star Wars: Empire At War is to be Intel-only. I've seen a lot of backlash about this on other forums – what's the opinion here?

Game runs kinda slow anyway. Wouldn't want to try it on anything less than a 2 GHz G5, properly optimized. However, in all likelihood it will not be properly optimized for PPC even if it were UB, so that's fine.

It's also a lot easier not to care when one owns an Intel Mac, but really I don't care because I'd still buy the PC version for mods and expansions, cheaper prices and better performance. We may be moving away from the whole multiplayer incompatibility issue, but I'm not getting my hopes up just yet.

Also, the X1600 in my MB Pro is underclocked in OS X, resulting in significant performance drops. This is a game I would want to play with nothing inhibiting performance.

The X1600 in the MacBook Pro dynamically changes speed depending on what it's doing. In the Finder it's underclocked, in a game it revs up.

I know people are complaining about Intel-only, BUT it is far better then Vista-only. Honestly, would you prefer to have a faster computer to run a game or be forced to upgrade your OS to a buggy, resource hungry POS like Vista? Gamers on both Mac and PC are feeling the bite, but ask yourself, who really has the better deal at this point in time?

Yeah, I already have the PC version, so I *might* pick it up, but it's doubtful.

A less than 2GHz G5 is pre-2003 anyway. You wouldn't expect a top-notch game to run on 4-year-old hardware in neither world, PPC or x86.

I run a fair amount of good games on the 3 1/2 year old PC. Of course, it has been upgraded, but the processor is still the same (2.6 GHz P4) though I might be changing that soon, once I get a new PSU and cooling unit.