Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Apple Needs To Get Its Game On 332

BusinessWeek is running a piece exploring why Apple needs to get back into gaming. From the article: "Maybe Apple's user base just isn't fully aware of great games that are now available for the Mac? Sure, there are games to be found at the Apple store, prominently displayed in the software section. But does Apple market the Mac as a gaming machine? Adams says it should. 'The biggest thing that Apple could do is educate its users,' she says. 'Apple's message is so closely tied to iTunes and iLife and the iPod and these are all great selling points. We have a great relationship with Apple and they help us get the games ready. But we really need the users to meet us halfway, and only Apple can make that happen.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Needs To Get Its Game On

Comments Filter:
  • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Friday June 02, 2006 @05:07PM (#15457924) Homepage
    was switch to Intel. The G5s were nice processors, but the 1.67 GHz G4 in my PowerBook just can't compete with the 3 GHz processors you could get in Wintel laptops at the same time. A 2.5 GHz G5 doesn't compete well against a 3.2 GHz dual core Index or AMD.

    Apple's CPUs just weren't up to snuff. Now they are. Next up, graphics cards. I've heard the Mac versions are often terribly slow (mostly from arriving 1+ year after the PC part) for the desktops. The chip in my PowerBook was nice, but it was no screamer either. They also need to fix the integrated graphics issue (which is partially Intel's fault. Who makes a non-T&L chip in 2006?).

  • by ProudClod ( 752352 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @05:13PM (#15457981)
    Apple's Market Cap is ~$50bn. Nintendo's is ~$27bn. Could Apple "buy them out"?
  • Re:First Thing (Score:4, Informative)

    by NutscrapeSucks ( 446616 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @05:31PM (#15458110)
    Well, the average "Macs Have Games" post brags about 2-3 year old stuff like Unreal Tournament 2004, so I can't really blame the publishers for charging full price for old titles. It's not like there's an abundance of new titles drawing peoples attention.

    Note that the price disparity also exists for mainstream programs like MS Office. Mac users are not price sensitive.

  • I'm not sure what Apple can do to "fix" the integrated graphics issue. I mean, looking at almost every PC laptop in that $1000-1500 price range, which the MacBook exists in, the Intel Integrated Graphics 950 chip seems to be one of the most common graphics chipsets available. Apple is currently using the ATI X1600 (in 128 or 256 meg variants) in the MacBook Pro and the iMac, and seem to basically be on par with the PC version (although the MBP X1600 is dramatically underclocked, apparently for heat and battery life reasons..... a number of MBP owners have clocked it back up to normal speeds though without too much problem). Given the MBP form factor the ATI X1600 is one of the better cards you can even get right now (and similar offerings from Asus and Acer use a similar video card...... it's really only when you get to the 17" behemoths that the competition is offering stuff like the 7900GS and 7900GTX, which Apple isn't yet offering anything to compete with).
  • bullsh*t (Score:3, Informative)

    by kencurry ( 471519 ) on Friday June 02, 2006 @06:47PM (#15458640)
    Ever heard of Marathon? II - Durandal?

    These spawned HALO, which put the xbox on the map.

  • Re:First Thing (Score:3, Informative)

    by kalidasa ( 577403 ) on Saturday June 03, 2006 @03:00AM (#15460556) Journal
    Office Standard - $329.99 for Windows, $334.98 for Mac. I don't think that $4.99 is a price difference that users should be "sensitive" to. Oh, the list prices are the same, too.

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay