- Related Stories
-
Apple earnings: 21 million reasons to love the holidays
January 17, 2007 -
Year in review: Video game industry grows up
December 22, 2006 -
MacBook Pro laptops upgraded with Core 2 Duo
October 24, 2006 -
HP to acquire Voodoo Computers
September 28, 2006 -
Apple shows Leopard's spots
August 7, 2006 -
Virtual Windows on a Mac coming to stores
July 17, 2006 -
OpenGL galvanizes game graphics
September 9, 2004
Given the "cool factor" of the Mac as portrayed in those ubiquitous ads, some might think gamers choose Macs more often than the average PC buyer. (Apple's market share among the U.S. general public is 4.7 percent.) But analysts say that by a wide margin, Windows-based PCs are preferred by serious gamers, who often influence the buying decisions of their friends.
A little more than a year ago, after Apple launched its first Intel-based Mac, some Apple users were hopeful that adopting the same processors as the Windows crowd would let Mac users quickly get their hands on the best games. Now Apple's entire lineup has moved over to Intel, and Mac users are still forced to wait for the best games. Some decide to buy a Windows machine just to play.
The reason for that Windows versus Mac preference is equal parts historical, technical and business strategy, according to analysts and game developers. Microsoft has spent far more time than Apple courting game developers, and it has the larger group of users that game developers seek. PCs are more flexible, and they allow gamers to add do-it-yourself features to accomplish tasks like improve graphics. And for now, Apple appears content to focus on lifestyle software like its iLife suite.
While most of the hype, and increasing amounts of money, go to console games like Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PlayStation 3 or Nintendo's Wii, the PC game software market was actually worth $970 million last year, according to researchers at The NPD Group. So it's not a market to sneeze at.
Some believe, however, that Apple could be preparing for a renewed attack on the game industry through products like the iPod and Apple TV. Certainly, many games are available for the Mac. Apple maintains a list of games on its Web site that are currently available for its technology, and that roster includes popular titles such as Age of Empires III and Civilization IV. And with the switch to Intel, it's easier than ever to compare the performance of the Mac to other PCs on the market.
"The Mac is faster and more powerful than ever, has stunning graphics and a growing list of popular games that our customers enjoy, including World of Warcraft, Prey and The Sims 2.0," Apple spokeswoman Lynn Fox said in a statement.
But with the notable exception of World of Warcraft, those games were available for Windows PCs long before they made their way onto Macs. Apple users often have to wait several months for new PC game titles to be ported over to Mac OS X, said Glenda Adams, director of development with Aspyr. Major game studios tend to develop for Windows and let others, such as Aspyr, port Windows games to the Mac platform, a process that can take several months, she said.
It's not that Mac users are less interested in playing games on their systems than the Windows crowd, Adams said, but the perception among game developers is that Apple's priorities are its own products like iLife or iTunes. "At some point, they kind of shifted to where they are only focusing on Apple software," she said.
Keeping it casual
These days, some Mac game developers are concentrating more on so-called "casual games," a category of software-based entertainment that includes word and puzzle games, board games and even some classic arcade titles that are generally easier to pick up than complicated first-person shooters or epic strategy games, Morrison said. These games don't require cutting-edge performance or expensive game rigs that hard-core gamers covet, but they are becoming more and more popular among those intimidated by intricate games.
Casual games also bypass some of the technical reasons Apple trails Microsoft in the hard-core gaming arena, said Bruce Morrison, a producer for Freeverse. Freeverse produces games mostly for Mac OS X, including such titles as Heroes of Might and Magic. "Mac OS X could have a lot more support for gaming," he said.
For example, while Apple took a big step forward with the addition of the OpenGL specification for 3D graphics to Mac OS X, it still doesn't have an answer to the DirectX technology found in Windows, Morrison said. DirectX is a collection of APIs used by developers in their designs.
OpenGL is "old tech" compared to DirectX, said Jake Richter, an analyst with Jon Peddie Associates. And since DirectX can only be used with Microsoft's software, Apple would have to undertake a significant development effort to come up with its own technology or encourage the development of a different open standard, he said.
See more CNET content tagged:
game company, Apple Computer, Apple iLife, Apple Macintosh, gamer
Pro was very high on my radar. The problem for me is solely that
Apple laptops are so much more difficult to mod without the
help of Apple themselves - and they're going to charge you for
it. Gamers (like myself) like to manually re-configure stuff. Apple
doesn't recommend that too often.
The second reason is price. Just this week, I configured an HP
DV9000 with HIGHER specs (a much faster hard drive, better
video card and 1 Gb more of memory, and the same length of
warranty) than the MacBook Pro I was looking at purchasing. The
Hp has a built-in webcam and remote-control media center on
par with the MacBook Pro. All-in-all, the HP was $800 less
expensive! That totally shocked me! I thouhgt about all the
things I can get with that extra $800, such as more memory or a
much faster new video card, and the value of the MacBook Pro
began to decline for me.
I understand that MacBooks MAY be more expensive to make
than other laptops and the OS is made by Apple, also; however,
on the surface I can hardly see the $800 difference. Not to
mention, the HP Imprint design is the sleekest-looking in the PC
market - at least to me. (Though, I do love the look of the
MacBook Pro, also.)
I'm still going to keep looking at the MacBook Pro throughout
this year, but when it comes time to buy a new gaming laptop,
then their direct competition for my gaming cash is the HP....
And right now, the HP is far in the lead.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-ekl_cEWk
home and work, I have had 3 HP laptops go bad within the last 4
months. Component after component started cascadingly go
bad. Not sure if that translates into the quality of their desktops,
but something is up. I've always liked HP products in the past,
but have had a string of bad luck lately. HP repaired and
replaced the products appropriately, but nevertheless just do
some more research. I don't know if they have changed where
they get their parts or what, and perhaps my experiences were
unique. Who knows.
As far as which is better. Message board after message board
has silly people bickering about Mac this and Windows based
that. It's all rubbish. It's a bloody computer. I know people get
personal about their systems and that's fine. However arguing
about it is like harassing someone because they drive a different
car than you. It's just ascinine. I like both. I use Mac at home,
but my wife likes her HP. So what, that just gives me the best of
both worlds.
Apple doesn't do anything differrent than any other company
wants to do out there. They want you to buy THEIR products,
they all just have different strategies. IT'S BUSINESS, they are
there to make money for crying out loud. You can't be so caught
up in a brand that you lose your sensibility in what you want to
buy.
Look over what you want and buy what's best and right for you.
If you like it, it works for you, and it was worth the money to
you, then you made the right decision.
Good luck!
Linux is also far behind with mainstream games, and that platform has been able to run on Intel platforms, for quite a long time.
and gets serious about it, the PC gaming is over too, because Macs
don't crash, freeze and stufpid crap like that, which PCs do all the
time.
quite clearly viewed by "the industry" as a
server operating system, most of all, and one
that's mostly used commercially. OSX, on the
other hand, is generally considered an end-user
desktop environment with a much higher degree of
personal use.
The real reason that pundits (not users) thought
that moving to Intel would bring games was
because they earnestly thought that game
developers were writing code for a particular
CPU -- which isn't exactly true, and surely not
how this author seems to understand it.
In fact, there are some bits of the underlying
engines of modern games that are still written
in assembly language for speed, and those bits
are CPU-specific, but the majority of the engine
development is at a much higher level today. One
need not "rewrite" but a tiny bit of code to
port a game to a different platform today.
Almost all the offsite Macs and PCs I support are used by adults and few have any "big" games installed (a few did have some simple ones used by small children).
From what I've read, there are many hard core gamers around, but it would seem that they are a tiny percentage of the total desktop user market. Does anyone have any real numbers?
I have alot of Mac friends and we've been gaming since 1997. We started on a game called Myth because it was cross platform. Then we went to Myth 2. Many of them purchased PC's so we could play other games together. Now, we all play Xbox 360. And they're all still die hard Mac users. They just don't have any games.
I said years ago that Apple should buy a gaming company or 2 and become a developer. What position do you think they would be in right now given the fact they are, in all reality, a PC hardware wise.
This isn't about Macs or PC's. This is about gamers. This is about giving your customers options and listening to what they've wanted for years. But, as we've seen in the past... Apple tells you what you need. You need iTunes and iPods. You need gadgets like the iPhone. You don't need games.
gamers might be relativey low. However, its *much* more
important to look at the dollars spent. An 'average' home user
might spend $800 or so on a desktop system. A dedicated
gamer will spend $800 on 4GB of ram. Another $1000 on dual
graphic cards (crossfire or SLI), $250 on the mother board, $800
on the processor, $500 on storage (a raptor for fast disk and a
raid for mass storage, $800 on two monitors, $100 on a mouse,
$100 on a keyboard, $300 on water cooling, etc etc etc... Oh,
and they'll do this every 12 months. I didn't even bother to
mention the physics accelerators or gaming tuned NICs.
Its a *huge* market. Gamers are *highly* influential and a
signficant push behind the rapid technological advancement.
Got to sites like guru3d.com, hardocp.com, and
tomshardware.com to get an idea on what gamers are really
interested in. Games like Age of Conan are going to be a
bonanza for hardware vendors - especially because it is a Dx10
game. Many of the games available on the Mac just don't push
the hardware.
I think Apple would have a *very* difficult time breaking into the
market. They just aren't willing to open the hardware up and
unless you can use the latest $1000 video card the day it comes
out in your system a lot of hard core gamers just won't be
interested. PCs give gamers the chance of being at the very
bleeding edge of hardware tech and that is *very* important to
them. Apple could capture that market but it would require a
fundamental shift in their approach.
play. I'm an adult. I'm not a gamer.
But the great majority of the young opinion-makers on places
like this do play, and it's important to them.
Isn't the crucial difference Direct X versus OpenGL? I mean, a
card manufacturer has to make a majore firmware and hardware
change to support the Mac, and gaming companies have to
either develop for both platforms in parallel or sequentially. And
mostly, they develop for the PC and for the game boxes.
why doesn't the Mac support my Intellevision???
The sole issue is a graphics/gaming API.
Apple supports the industry standard 3D API -- Open GL. Open GL is not specifically a gaming API but supports primarily CAD and modeling. Direct X is primiarly a game API.
That's the issue. Casual games that don't need advanced game graphics or those that use OpenGL or their own APIs (and if the developers have code to port across the software platforms) ARE made for the Mac profitably.
Apple would have to develop CoreGraphics and CoreAnimation and other APIs to a full gaming API and even then game developers would still need some sort of translation/porting code to move DX code to Apple's (hypothetical) APIs.
This is still a long way off. Although one company is purporting to have code to more easily manage game porting...
Apple may seriously be entering a casual market that works well on the iPod, iPhone, and TV. That has nothing to do with high-end PC or console games or gamer computer rigs or anything else...
"I find it somewhat funny that Apple users thought that with the adoption also comes the games."
I don't know anyone who held this belief. This story is very poorly written and seems to be trying very hard, too hard, to make a story out of some recent rumors.
as simple as OpenGL versus DirectX. For game
designers, they are not developing games using
either technology. They are developing on top of
a game engine, which is an abstraction layer on
top of the underlying I/O, Graphics, and Audio
subsystems. It's done this way because without
doing it that way it would be very difficult to
port games between platforms (namely PCs and
consoles).
The engines themselves use DirectX or OpenGL.
What DirectX provides is a single API spec for
Audio, Graphics, and I/O. There's considerable
coordination between those facets, which makes
it easier to build the game engine on top.
However, the major drawbacks are that it's
completely unportable, somewhat cumbersome, and,
until DX10, only implemented a subset of the
featureset of current versions of OpenGL. Games
that are available only on Windows and XBox
likely use engines built on top of DirectX.
The non-DirectX route is not necessarily any
more difficult. Rather than a single coordinated
API for all the facets of the game, you have
distinct APIs that are specialized in their
functions. The pros are that it's generally more
flexible and performs better, the cons being
that aside from OpenGL they're different for
each platform. Engines built on this structure
are highly portable, but require code to
abstract the interfaces to the Audio and I/O
APIs. This architecture permits the games to be
easily ported to any platform (see games
released for Wii, PS3, and Windows at the same
time).
That said, in practical terms, with modern
development tools, building an engine based on
the OpenGL architecture isn't much more work
than the DirectX one. Further, if you simply
license an engine already built, the cost is
greatly reduced.
It should also be noted that there's also a port
of DirectX 9 for the Mac.
So, the issue isn't really related to the
DirectX API, but whether or not they want to
make any effort at all, marginal as it may be,
to support the Mac. I don't see why not, it
appears to be the "up and coming" thing -- with
what, an estimated 7.5% of total market share
now? ... and a much higher percentage in homes,
and continued sales growth... But some game
companies wouldn't support the Mac even at 50%
share.
but casual games are nce, because they are simple, yet fun (take a
look at Allenroids, Armagetron Advanced, krank, MacSwear, and
Supertux (all freeware and universal).
OpenGL is "old tech" compared to DirectX, said Jake Richter, an analyst with Jon Peddie Associates
Analysts and their opinions ...
Read Wikipedia instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Direct3D_and_OpenGL
I have a friend, he has a Macbook Pro and has bootcamp installed. He plays Prey on the windows side and has all this college stuff on the mac side.
bottom line to this story is the fact that the industry as a whole
is changing. PC gaming is in fact, is in it's golden years. Long
before console gaming became the standard, you needed the
processor muscle of PC's to give you that cutting edge play of
high end graphic games. Now the consoles are high
performance mini computer that focus specifically on the games.
So investing time and money on gaming on the PC is a wasted
effort.
Mr. Kravitz acknowledgment that casual gaming on the mac, and
even the PC for that matter, will be more of the case in the
future. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people in my
office play solitare or suduko on their PC's. I have 20 something
games on my Mac at home, however, I only play one or two with
any regularity. One of those games is Unreal Tournament 2k4.
To my knowledge, I don't think it has been released on console
yet. However they are suppose to release UT 2K7 this year, and I
would suspect that they will make a console version as well,
cosidering the migration of gaming to consoles. I personally
have a game cube that I play games with my kids, and I spend
more time on that than I do on my Mac playing games.
So to sum up this article, I don't see Mac getting involved in
gaming much more than they are now, just because Gaming on
PC's or Macs, is a industry that is on it's way out in the next 5 to
10 years. Grant you, there will still be casual gameing on them,
just not the high end gameing you will find on consoles.
Gene from ZuneChannel.com
Think about it. Apple knows how to multi-task.
Let's not forget that Apple tried getting into the Gaming market and failed with the Apple Pippin. So they do have some experiance with that and esspecially failure experiance, I am a Mac Fan, but I think that Microsoft and SONY and Nintendo do a pretty good job and there is a lot of games out there to waste our time on.
Apple would have to come out with something revolutionary for it to catch into the matker.
That's my 420 cents.
about the problem that Mac game industry currently has. Less
and less Mac users play games on their computers. That's partly
because of BootCamp. That's also because of Mac-only online
game application called GameRanger, whose Universal Binary
version was finally made available in early December. Many Mac
gamers left GameRanger because of its bugs and their inability to
fix problems. You may want to read this article for more
information. For example, Age of Mythology players faced a 20
minute time-out problem in using GameRanger. GameRanger
didn't fix it till recently. If you go to Inside Mac Games, you can
also see a strong sign that less Mac users are playing games.
Less and less people are posting reader reviews.
way to even find games is to mystically kow that you have to
type in apple.com/games in the URL field. There has never even
been a button to games at apple.com.
Now you can see a link to ipod only games as a part of ipod...but
it's the first time.
If you are looking for games to run on your Mac, Apple hope you
will not find that any exist. I think it's because in the early days,
Apple was afraid of being seen as a "Toy" computer. And even
with the billion follar game industry driving hardware sales
Apple still can't step up to the gameing plate.
I know Leopard is coming out very soon, but while its added features are neat, they're not as revolutionary as Tiger was. Time Machine is neat, but personally a little TOO graphical for my taste.
As for what you said, you're right -- Apple is completely proprietary ... like Sony to the nth degree. I swore up and down that my next laptop was going to be a Mac, until I released Apple's "reasonable" asking price of the MacBook was $1200 (for the DVD+RW Writer ugh..) and just add a much needed 3 year warranty (90 DAYS of technical support -- Apple is out of their mind!) the price was over $1,500 without taxes!
When new Vista Home Premium / Ultimate etc, can be had in the low 800's to mid 900s -- savings of quite a bit.
The argument can be said, is that it is a lot of computer for the money. While that may be true, Apple gives the consumer very little choice when configuring their computers. Aside from Hard Drive size and memory, you can't find a laptop from them that even compares in the price to performance ratio.
Again, as much as I love their Operating System, their little smug attitude has gotten pretty old, not to mention why are the so smug when most of their features are now duplicated on Vista or have been on Linux for years?! Good luck Apple -- choice is not in their customer's vocabulary apparently.
downhill again."
Sorry "IMCOOLTRUSTME," but in this case your opinion is old,
out-dated and not cool.
You underestimate the value of Apple's integrated system for
advanced production: they are a long way form the downhill
path you mention.
In fact, with Vista's slow launch, bloated performance, and poor
security, Apple is set to vault to new levels.
Time will tell which of us is correct, but in this case, I'd wager
that your "cool guy factor" is nothing but hot air.
Fair enough, no one said they had to.
It's a very cabable computer system, no jokes about it. It's just not one for gamers....
Period. But technically buying an Intel Mac is still better than
buying an average PC for the simple fact in runs both XP/OSX.
But I'm not here to convince the ignorant.
Sure Apple is a little short in the gaming dept., but its not Steve
Job's fault its the fault of previous CEOs of Apple who let
Microsoft drive the DIRECT 3D proprietary format into the
sofware development market which allows them to maintain an
advantage, as most Game developers choose DIRECT 3D over
the standard OPEN GL.
If Apple were serious about gaming they would need a
competing format which I don't feel is realistic for them to even
consider since Windows is just another App running under
Bootcamp.
I play games EVERY day.
I bought a PC, not a console.
I spent the console money on more RAM, faster processor, better video card.
I'm happy.
I don't need to buy a console.
Steve Jobs will rename computer gaming as Gamecasting, and
the media will start to act like he invented Computer Games; just
like how he invented the portable digital music player, invented
icons on the computer desktop screen, invented streaming
audio/podcasting, invented a phone that plays music, invented
the transfer of songs on the internet, invented the touch-screen
handheld device market, and all of the other thousands of
inventions that Steve Jobs has come out with over the years.
industry. Yes, its true he didn't invent most of the things you
mentioned but he took them to the next level through
innovation.
Since Jobs return.. Microsoft has released Windows XP, Windows
VISTA and the Zune media player & Zune Marketplace Although
hes not indirectly reponsible for those projects, it was his
influence that brought them to the light of day.
Plus if it wasn't for Steve Jobs (if your a PC user which I assume
you are), you'd probably still be using DOS.
So lighten up!
I can see it now.
games on my MacBook Pro through Boot Camp. Even though it's
still in Beta (for the next month or two), it works just fine.
So why should Apple spend money developing games, when they
can just say "use Boot Camp/Windows on your Apple?"
Lets say next year, the coolest game ever invented comes out. Of course it's for PC, and unfortunately it will require a video card upgrade to play it, otherwise you'll be playing at 10 FPS with all the settings turned down all the way.
The man with the pc goes out and buys a new video card. Sure, it might be pricy, but being a gamer, he's happy with his decision. You would either put up with the 10 FPS, or go buy a new computer.
Again, you were talking about a notebook, but of course gamers don't use notebooks unless they HAVE to.
Look at lousy way they they treat even their historically close development partners (e.g., Metrowerks, Adobe), and you might understand the industry's reluctance to deal with Apple given their low market-share and hardware lock-in.
Go down to your local retailer and see how much shelf space is devoted to Windows as opposed to the Mac (if any at all.)
Visit a download.com and see that 99% of the software there are Windows ONLY. And many of the ones which ARE available for the Mac are actually Java programs, not native MacOS apps.
Last but not least, from a 3D perspective, Apple hardware is pretty lacking unless you buy the top of the line Mac Pros. A brand new 20" iMac has a wimpy X1600 in it. Most the 17" iMacs and all the Mac Minis have pathetic Intel GMA shared memory GPUs.
That's not counting the OpenGL overhead, and the fact that Mac hardware (outside of Mac Pro) is not upgradable.
You clearly haven't been watching the development space. MOST OSX software is DOWNLOADED, it's the more modern approach and how all software will be distributed going forward. If you are still using the 1980's idea that "shelf space" equals marketshare, you've got a lot to learn.
OSX is the king of the of the software world right now, and unless Microsoft pulls a miracle, they will be inferior to OSX from here on out.
Currently there are 14,000 modern OSX programs, while only 2,300 modern programs for Windows.
Think about it!
being a PC hobbyist the fact remains that not too many people
even consider upgrading, anyway! Who really wants to spend the
money to upgrade their motherboard, hardrive or graphics card
when they can just buy a brand new computer, there isn't any
hassle and in the long run they'll probably save more money.
So I really think your miguided view of Apple not being easily
upgradeable is just plain stupid. Upgrading a PC for an average
non-tech user is a daunting task at best, not to mention
installing the software, which is equal to taking two aspirins.
The intelligent solution is just buy another computer; PC or
MAC. When Macs are shipped they come with all the high end
parts not unlike the HPs, DELLs & Sonys of the PC world. So what
are you talking about?
MACs do last a long time and can carry software upgrades for
atleast 5 years even more if you buy a highend mac. Either way
people usually think about replacing their computer after 5 years
anyway. The iMacs and Mac Minis are superb machines that run
OS X beautifully and can run Windows VISTA just as great if not
even better than any PC equivalent. And come on! Macs are just
cool and beautifully designed, as compared to that biege box
you yourself want to upgrade. Stop treating your PC like its a
rare vehicle, cause it isn't one.
I use both XP, LINUX & MAC OSX on my Macbook PRO. They all
run excellent. Don't get me wrong I see a lot of dumb MAC users
and PC users out there. You fall under the dumb PC user
category.
happy to deal with Apple. What FUD you spew is hilarious. Thanks
for the laugh.
PC to get all the games I would like to have. Don't get me wrong,
I am still a Mac user and do everything on it, but I turned to the
PC for gaming a couple years back. That is all I use the PC for
and nothing else. That is all they are good for. I think Apple is
being quiet for now. Like what they did with the " iPhone ". That
has been quiet for about 2 1/2 years. It was the most " hush -
hush " new product for a long time from them. Then they
jumped out in Jan. about it and everyone ( Moto., LG and the
like) scrambled like mice. They may have something up their
sleaves when they release OS X 10.5 or at WWDC 2007. They
need to have something else besides Core to help the
developers to make games like DirectX. They have been quiet for
about 3 years or so. They are long over due.
http://www.apple.com/games
Breakout and Super Breakout were not even listed! :-)
Not much of a gamer myself, so I don't know if those listed are good or still popular.
Just wanted to point out that Apple has dedicated a chunk of their web site to games. So they're not totally ignoring that market.
When I first set up at a really big party, some clueless gits will always chuck a load of grief in my direction for daring to bring a Mac along... 30 minutes later, once I mop the floor with most of said critics in a map, they get awful quiet ab't bad-mouthing Macs as gaming platforms. (I consistently place in the top three on most UT CTF and DM/TDM style maps).
I honestly don't care if I have the latest-and-greatest games, as long as I have the ones that I can consistently find lots of fellow players on.
/P
They havent played these games in over 4 years! LOL!!!
You might as well have a Ms. Pac Man LAN party too. LOL!!!
I have read estimates that there are 10,000,000 Counter Strike Source players, second only behind World of Warcraft which can be played on a Mac. Throw in all the other games that can't be played on a Mac without buying windows and that is a ton of potential customers. Get into gaming Mac and we will come, games I can play on the iPod, no thanks.
Also, I have read a few comments that if you want to play games get a console.
For a person that wishes to dabble in games and have graphics, 1080P = 1920 x 1080 resolution that are just now starting to get to a low end system, then by all means by a PS3 and your 4K TV and tell me how much you saved, over my 1.2k computer that plays at that level. Also, currently there are no games that even support 1080p on a console. Although I am sure there will be. Consoles are cluncky and the contols are wrong. Plus in consoles you have to rely on computer aided aiming to hit anything. Now I play on a 360 and also on a Wii, so I am not against consoles or console gaming it's just the experienece, to me, is not as satisfying.
- Let's not forget Crossover
- by Vegabondmx February 15, 2007 9:46 PM PST
- Crossover from Codeweavers is based off WINE and allows some
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (205 Comments)Windows programs to be ran in OSX without Windows. Some of
these programs include games. Many of Valve's games such as
Half Life and Counterstrike run beautifully in OSX with
Crossover. Some other games such as Half Life 2 run, but but
are a bit buggy. It's surely a way off until there's nearly 100%
compatibility, but it has promise. Gaming in MacOS isn't that
much of a tale. With MacOS and Crossover there are a decent
number of games you can play on a Mac without Windows.
Perhaps this project could be licenced to help port games to
OSX.