Mac Users...

Current market share for Mac OS is maybe/roughly 10%.  Linux is about 1.5%.  (those figures are generous since last time I looked and it was 7% and < 1% and this info is probably guestimate at best anyways)  Out of those users, it's likely that many are NOT gamers (gamers buy PCs or consoles - if you were serious about PC gaming you'd buy a PC).  Win XP is still at 30% and mostly won't be supported for this game (the chances of someone having 64 bit WinXP, and a Dx 10+ card, and enough horsepower to play a game like this enjoyably are pretty low).

Why should developers compromise the quality of their game, add extra dev time, and add extra customer support hassles, for operating systems that aren't really used by serious gamers and/or that aren't used much at all (like Linux) ?

Worst case both Linux and Mac can "shift" for gaming.  Linux runs on typical PCs so worst case you can dual/multi boot to run Win7 for gaming.  You can do boot camp or the like on Macs, which isn't perfect, but works.  Basically IMO if you want to force the issue then you should be the one adjusting, not developers.

I don't think I was trying to force anything; just a slightly humorous request for information. Your response is sort of troubling though.

I think I'm a "serious gamer." I started gaming on computers with games by Interplay, Accolade, Origin, Westwood Studios, Firaxis, and MicroProse, when they were released; long before titles like Sim City, Wasteland, Ultima, and X-COM became "classics." At the time, its what was new. I was present and accounted for when Nintendo had their World Championship; my mistake was mailing the cartridge back in, its quite valuable now! I watched the 80's gaming crash due to the glut of shovel-ware come close to choking the life out of the industry. I've watched as "Evil Acquisitions" has bought up amazing developers, only to fire the staff, horde the IP, or turn it into a horrible, micro-transaction fueled mockery of once-great franchises.

Maybe I'm just an old gamer.

I love computer gaming. We get the best graphics, the most intricate stories, and most innovative gameplay because computer developers have the freedom to expand on the versatility of the platform, and cater to the widest audience possible. Not every person has $15k to drop on a Falcon Northwest Uber PC; there has to be a happy medium between the people who play on Ferrari-esque rig's, and the people who can only afford the $600 Dell black friday special.

The best part of the computer gaming community has always been the big tent. Regardless of the rig, we welcome everybody who wants to play; that openness is what allows us to avoid the fanboy bullshit that hardcore console gamers get bogged down in. We don't draw battle lines over which company's price/offering model sucks hard enough to get a golf ball through a garden hose, while the other couldn't find an original idea right in front of it with a flashlight and a map. We roast foolishness across the entire spectrum. If someone achieves greatness, we shower them with praise, loyalty, and our hard-earned money; which is why Stardock, Bethesda, and Bioware have been around so long. If someone drops a turd in a box and charges us $60+ to get a whiff once we open it up, we let them know too by avoiding their product in the future...isn't that right Gearbox? Comments EA?

So why engage in fanboy-ism now? Are you really going to go all out and claim that Windows is the be-all-and-end-all of operating systems? I understand that it is the standard, because for most of the last 20 years there hasn't been an accessible alternative choice for consumers. Your guesstimate suggests an uptick in users going away from Windows, and embracing alternative OS. Or at least giving something new a try. If you are correct, and people are migrating, why not get as much market share as possible? Even if you aren't correct, and most people stick with Windows, it seems foolish to give up on 7-10% of the market without trying to get some of that money in the company coffers.

In the end, I think we all want the best game possible.

I just wish that in this age of player choice that I had nearly the same amount of choice as my in-game avatar about what gear I want to equip.

I understand the overall lack of support for OSX gaming but are people really still taking sides on this issue? These days you can run practically any major OS on any Intel machine you want. I have five operating system installs on an i7 Macbook Air, which is decent but hardly a powerhouse, and it runs many Windows games just fine, including GalCiv.

Even in Parallels with only half memory allocation, I can still run recent releases well enough. Bootcamp runs even better, of course. A small notebook won't cope with any cutting edge triple-A titles with state of the art graphics, but there's no reason a larger Mac wouldn't, especially with a dedicated GPU. Not that there's much to worry about, Stardock's games don't really push the envelope of heavy graphics processing anyway. It would be nice if all games worked on all platforms but we have to make allowances for certain titles.