Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Port DirectX Games to the Mac

Posted by pudge on from the we-just-don't-have-enough-games dept.

tassii writes "MacCentral reports that Coderus' MacDX provides PC game developers with a way of moving that DirectX code to the Mac without having to rewrite it from scratch. Coderus claims that most code which uses DirectX can simply be recompiled and linked to the MacDX libraries. Maybe I can finally play the full Command and Conquer series."

12 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. This is bad by IshanCaspian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The DirectX api is cumbersome and very proprietary. This just gives more developers reason to stick with DirectX. I would much rather see work put into expanding the featureset of OpenGL to include some of the more advanced features that have to be implemented as hacks. Even though the OpenGL featureset is a bit behind directx, it is a pleasure to work with, and so I hate to see anything that undermines the reasons for adopting it.

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:This is bad by kwerle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, we should totally keep developers from easily porting games that work on 90% of the worlds computers. We should take away their choices, not give them more. Totally. I so agree with you.

      Oh, wait. That was what the evil-me would have said. Really, I think making it easy to port games is a good thing. I don't give a crap what API folks use, just so long as I get to play the damn game on my bitchin' mac hardware.

      Just as soon as OpenGL 'catches up', and game programmers start flocking to it, I won't give a shit - just as long as I get to play the damn game on my bitchin' mac hardware.

  2. And another thing... by IshanCaspian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will undermine the potential for games on linux. If the Mac market can be addressed using DirectX, there's less reason to develop opengl apps, which are portable to linux.

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:And another thing... by WatertonMan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      People write for markets they can make money at. Right now while many games make huge profits, many others lose money. If you are investing a lot of time and effort you'll probably develop for the market with the best return on your investment. That is Windows games and likely the various consoles. OSX follows a distant third and even there are usually ports done by subcontracted Mac developers. (And they usually are inferior, unfortunately) Linux is a distant, distant market.

      Sorry, but it is the truth.

      The problem has less to do with DirectX vs. OpenGL than it does code reuse and other such issues at the gaming companies.

      Put an other way, if you think that porting DirectX means fewer games for Linux, you are simply being naive. The reason games don't come to Linux is much more complex.

  3. I hope this speeds up porting... by osxuser-02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate going to the software store and seeing a Mac game for 49.95, then seeing the same title in PC format in the 9.99 sale bin.

    --

    I went to college for this?...

  4. Worthless,... by Brother+Tshober · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... if they don't include support for DirectPlay. There are already a lot of good games for the Mac, but most of them lack network support for mixed win/mac network games.

    The latest example: The PTW addon for Civ3. It's not yet decided if there will be a port for the mac, because the main problem is the DirectPlay based network of the windows version.

    And since network gaming seems to be the place, the gaming industry is heading, imho there is a need for an free network-api, which is designed for gaming, like directplay.
    There's OpenGL, OpenML, now who will create OpenNL for OpenNetwerkLibrary ?

  5. WinOS2, Win32S on OS/2, WINE, API shift, next... by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps this is a necessary Evil, perhaps it's a poison pill. The jury is still out on Wine and its various ilk, but for OS/2 it was clearly a poison pill.

    What's needed is a way to walk the knife-edge down the middle. Perhaps a *good* WINE is just what we don't want. Perhaps a WINE that can be tweaked to do just a few critical things really is living on that knife edge.

    Maybe WinOS2 was just too good at running Win3.1 apps, or at least the perception was too good.

    As long as WINE isn't perceived as good enough, it will be viewed as only a crutch. WinOS2 was perceived as 'good enough' to neglect a native version, even if enough market was anticipated.

    It also remains to be seen how MacDX will be perceived. Hopefully only as a crutch, and a reason to then consider OpenGL and SDL as better solutions.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  6. I don't want it nor need it. by lbrt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If DirecX becomes the only modern graphics library available, we have lost much from our freedom. If all popular computer entertainment would use DirectX, think about the power Microsoft would have.

    As long as people keep making good OpenGL games - such as the recent uDevGames contest winner - were safe.

    *lbtr

  7. Dear god by MoneyT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Directx is Satan spawn. I would hate for this to be the primary graphic base for games on my mac

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  8. Yeah, but by IshanCaspian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If windows developers were using something more portable than directx, you'd be getting your games anyways...and they'd be on linux...and the programmers would have a more elegant, and less restricted API. Some choices are easy and beneficial in the short run, but damaging in the long run. Do we really want to give Microsoft control over the API's that all game developers use?

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
    1. Re:Yeah, but by kwerle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If windows developers were using something more portable than directx, you'd be getting your games anyways...and they'd be on linux...and the programmers would have a more elegant, and less restricted API.

      And just as soon as someone writes this thing of beauty, developers will flock to it because it is better (yeah, right). Meanwhile, I just don't care. Making games easier to port is a good thing.

      Some choices are easy and beneficial in the short run, but damaging in the long run. Do we really want to give Microsoft control over the API's that all game developers use?

      M$ doesn't control any of the APIs that developers use (well, on the PC platform, anyway - xbox may be another story). Developers use APIs that M$ controls. There is a difference. Developers can chose not to use M$ API anytime they like. It turns out that they don't care about making their programs portable to the other 7% (or whatever), and that DirectX is the best thing for writing to windows. If there is a library that will allow them to port trivially to MacOSX, I hope they will find it worth their while. Until this magical, bitchin', non-M$ API appears, this is our best bet.

  9. fine, I'll bite, but as AC to protect my pride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    OK, here we go:

    1) Buy a freaking USB mouse with as many buttons and wheels as you like, it'll work fine with no extra software in OS X.
    2) See point 1. Buy a tower mac and you can put in any mac graphics card you want, including ones based on all recent 3d chips available, pretty much.
    3) You just gotta look in different places. Try Hotline, or better yet Carracho (www.carracho.com) and KDX (www.haxial.com). Even gnutella can be pretty good.
    4) See point 3. Those are usually available along w/ the w4r3z.

    Once you get the hang of it, the Mac Way(TM) is pretty fun and friendly.