Slashdot Mirror
Why Apple Should Port Games
DanTheMan writes "For every great game there is for Mac OS X, there are at least two for Windows. It's sad, but it's a fact. This article proposes a solution, and it's for Apple to port games. By the way, since the XBox 2 will use the PowerPC G5, it shouldn't be that difficult to port future XBox games to the Power Mac G5 and the iMac, both of which are 64-bit now. Would you buy a Mac if you could play Counterstrike Source and Half-Life 2? What other games are missing from Mac OS X?"
When Jobs didn't want games on the Mac to counter the argument that the Macintosh was "just a toy?"
if you want a gaming machine get a ps2 or xbox. the mac is not a gaming machine and hopefully will never be. i've never played games on my mac and don't plan to.
/ http://suffocate.us
/ http://johngrayson.com
since the XBox 2 will use the PowerPC G5, it shouldn't be that difficult to port future XBox games to the Power Mac G5 and the iMac
Just like it's a piece of cake porting Windows games to Linux on the x86?
By the way, since the XBox 2 will use the PowerPC G5, it shouldn't be that difficult to port future XBox games to the Power Mac G5 and the iMac, both of which are 64-bit now.
Why do people think that just because two platforms run on the same processor that porting things between them is "easy". I can guarantee that the OSs used to run the two platforms are nowhere near the same, not to mention the graphics/sound/networking/etc subsystems.
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
Just because a platform uses the same CPU doesn't mean it'll be easy to port between them. The CPU is often the least complex part of a computer as far as interfacing with it. I mean, compare the complexity of maintaining the page tables and memory segments of an intel CPU with the complexity of dealing with something like a PCI bus controller or a GPU or a DSP. Even the software layer will be completely different on the XBox2 than what Apple uses in OSX. Moroon.
apple hardware is just not fit for gaming. They ship the imac with an underpowered 3D card (GeFX 5200, only 64MB Vram, which barely plays UT2004, let alone Doom3) and insufficient RAM.
I always tell friends : buy a mac, and with the money saved by not paying the MS tax, buy yourself a 199$ PS2 for gaming
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
What does this have to do with anything? How much game code does this person think is CPU specific? Most of the problem with porting games to the Mac is that APIs used (e.g. DirectX) don't exist on the Mac. The only assembly code a modern game is likely to contain is targeting the GPU, not the GPU (and even this is more likely to be written in a higher level language now). Everything else will be written in a language that can target any CPU, as long as the required libraries exit on the target platform.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Yes, sad but true.
Meh.
I have had Macs since 1987. I didn't buy them to play games. I have been using Linux since 1997 too for work.
I did have a Windows 95 machine for games, it broke so we bought a PS2?
Do you see a pattern here?
My Mac mostly serves as a development server running Tomcat and PostgreSQL - it makes too much noise to be on all the time. I do some Adobe Illustrator work on it from time to time, and learn about OS X not much else.
realkiwi
as a troll... I'd like to say that this poster is absolutely correct. No matter how much Mac zealots love to claim it's just a myth! A person can buy a computer that can play the *most recent* games (although not very well, unless you turn off graphical extras like shadows, lighting, etc..) at around $500. No matter what you say, you just can't do that with a Mac.
Meh.
The submitter doesn't know what he's talking about.
When porting a game from one system to another, compiling to a different CPU is the easiest part. Just change a CPU setting in the compiler (or use a different compiler, if the one you have doesn't support the new target CPU).
The hard parts are stuff like talking to the graphics card (through DirectX or OpenGL), and the operating system.
Porting from Windows to X-box is easy. Change the CPU setting in the compiler, and rebuild. The X-box uses DirectX like Windows, with only minor differences, and some kind of Windows Embedded.
Going from X-box to OS-X then leaves only ALL THE HARD STUFF. Like rewriting everything that has to do with the OS and graphics (and sound and...) That's like... everything. Except pure calculation loops, that don't display anything.
Going from Linux to OS-X is way easier, but not going to get you any games. From OS-X to Linux can be easy, but as soon as the program starts using the nice Aqua/Cocoa/Carbon stuff, it gets hard too.
I think porting games to OS X will do little to convince gamers to move to that platform. I think one of the biggest reasons that gamers prefer the PC platform (other than the vastly superior game library) is the open nature of the hardware platform. Upgrades and additions are easily made, if a gamer wants to go out and buy the newest ATI or NVIDIA card they can just do it, no need to buy a completely new iMac or expensive upgrade through the Apple store.
More importantly, if a gamer wants to get a new motherboard or processor it is just as easy, this simply is not possible with the Apple platform. And there is choice in the PC market, Intel v. AMD, NVidia v. ATI, and the gamer makes the choice not Apple.
Despite the superiority of OS X, and I would say that most Windows users would not deny this, Apple simple is not a good platform for gaming. If gamers want a closed system that they have to buy a new one to upgrade (i.e. iMac) they will be way better of with an XBOX or PS2 or other console system, it certainly will be an order of magnitude cheaper. The open hardware of the PC platform just appeals to gamers and their custom-loving, fastest-craving attitude.
I know we'll get into this religious war about TCO and all that crap, but the fact remains that you can buy a new nicely equiped PC for a lot less than the cheapest Mac costs... and then you're getting the cheapest Mac.
The Mac MAY last longer, work better, and be easier to use, but if we all had the cash to follow that logic we'd all be driving Lexus and Infinities.
There's also momentum... I might be able to play the games I want to on Mac, but I definately can a PC... moreover, I have dozens of PC only games that I still have and will want to play long into the future. I could go out and buy a Mac, but why should I have two computers where one will suffice?
If I was starting out NEW, like if my house burned down and I lost everything in it, I might be inclined to buy a Mac. But otherwise, even I do think they are superior in many ways, it's simply not worth it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Considering I could build at least two extremely high-end PC systems for the cost of one moderatly high-end Mac, the answer would have to be "no."
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Why bother to couple GeForce GPUs with the Macs, if you aren't going to bother to utilize that power for games? It makes no sense. That's like buying a Ferrari just to drive to church every sunday.
I see a lot of comments already about how the Macs cost a lot..
Let me pose this question to those people then - with the recent changes in the industry, who is really paying more? The Mac users or the Windows users? Any high end card nowadays comes in PCI Express, which almost certainly requires you to buy a new motherboard, and possibly a new processor, on top of that $200-$400 card. Gaming definitely knows how to suck that money out of your wallet quicker than any Mac will.
Windows users are allowed to play more , but we pay the price for it. I suppose it's a necessary evil in order to enjoy gaming at its finest..
Id Software does this. Unfortunately, the sales have been dismal on Linux/Mac. There is very little incentive for companies to do this at this point in time.
I am curious to see the specs on your Doom 3-playing $500 Windows machine. Please, indulge me. Also, I would like if you would explain to me why I would pay $500 for a computer devoted purely to gaming when I can go buy a console for $150.
I refuse to buy a mac because, unlike most of my peers, I have a pretty good idea of what would happen if Apple was on 90% of the desktops in the world. Based on their past record (and the records of similiar premonopolies that are now monopolies (MS, Cisco, Intel, et.al):
#1. they would strong arm their competition into oblivion.
#2. They would use their own proprietary hardware to ensure they keep their market share.
#3. Their new product development would mimic Microsofts. Now they are forced to develop, to keep their niche. When they have 90%, they wouldn't be forced to keep their niche.
There are tens more I can't think of off the bat, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I may look stupid, but I'm not.
By the way, since the XBox 2 will use the PowerPC G5, it shouldn't be that difficult to port future XBox games to the Power Mac G5 and the iMac
Oh cool, by that logic, since my linux machine has an x86 chip and HL2 already works on Windows x86, porting it should be a piece of cake....no?
Only crazy people say "all" and "none".
Consoles suck for FPS games. Try sniping a guy a virtual mile away on a screen that is TV resolution, or using an analog joystick to strafe/dodge while firing and changing weapons.
Consoles suck for realtime strategy games. Try using your analog joystick to box a bunch of troops to send to a target. Try using it to select different groups of troops.
For all these, a mouse/keyboard combo is way better. And although consoles may work with those items, the games really aren't designed to use them.
if I used my computer for computing and my game console for gaming. My computer is used for writing emails, reading slashdot, programming and file sharing. I use Linux and with the money I don't spend on an OS I can actually buy a PS2 that doesn't require I stay up to date as often with my hardware.
are great games that are Mac-first or Mac-only. I know, good luck trying to convince developers to do that, when the Mac only has >5% marketshare.
Halo was originally going to be a Mac-first game. Bungie was originally a Mac-only developer, and they cranked out some great stuff. Marathon was the best FPS for the longest time, and it was Mac-only. So it was with much weeping and gnashing of teeth as Mac gamers watched Bungie get assimilated by the MS Borg Cube, and then watched as Halo came out for the Mac platform, dead last. Sigh...
Having Apple get involved with porting games is not a bad idea. Apple definitely needs to start throwing some money at game development. The only problem is that they would be taking money away from other Mac development houses that specialize in porting Windows games. It would be better if Apple would emulate MS and snatch up a few up-and-coming game developers, and start cranking out their own line of games.
At this point, that's the only way that Apple is going to get Mac-first and Mac-only A-list titles.
I'm sorry..
"Is a Mac 'superior' at surfing the Internet? No."
I happen to think that my time is kinda valuable and if by using a mac I can surf the web and not have to spend lots of my time cleaning off spyware etc every week/month then I say, its absolutely fucking 'superior'
Is a Mac 'superior' at sending/recieving email? No.
Same arguement can also be made here..oh wait, when was my Mac infected with an email borne virus.....oh thats right, it hasn't So again, the lack of downtime, is a huge plus, thereby gaining my approval of the 'superior' tag..
So many injustices..so little time..
The game core runs on OpenGL as well so actually it's one of the simpler games to port.
Not to say the Mac porting community is just lazy or anything.
I'm sure someone has mentioned Aspyr, Blizzard, MacPlay, MacSoft, and other companies who port Mac versions of popular games.
But all this talk presumes that, in order for gaming to be successful on a Mac, that (1) the Mac itself has to be less expensive, and (2) that the game must arrive on the Mac at the same time as the PC version, if there is a PC version.
First off, people don't buy Apple products because they are cheaper, but because they want a certain quality of machine.
Second, the Macintosh installed base of computer is around 15-25% (don't confuse this with marketshare, which is the total percentage of Macs sold in comarison to the rest of the computer market). That means it's impractical to make a game that is Mac only or works immediately on a Mac unless you have a great gaming team that knows how to make things port well. Some companies, like the team that put together Neverwinter Nights, made the game data so portable that Mac users had installed the 2 game expansions using the PC/Linux versions before the Mac versions of the expansions arrived 2 or so months ago.
Third, I'd rather let the PC users be my beta testers. There are hundreds of new games in the PC market, and most of them are crap. The games that rise to the top typically do get ported to the Mac, if they weren't on a later deploy list already. And take heart, the time that a PC game is ported to a Mac is much, much less than, say, 9 years ago. I might have to wait about 3 to 6 months for a popular PC to make its Mac debut, Usually, the wait is worth it as any game-stopping bug is squashed before I see it, and the game plays wonderfully on my computer.
Some games are slow to port, like Halo, Splinter Cell, and Battlefield 1942, and some great games were never ported, like Half-Life. But overall the Mac gaming world has profit and gives those who do play a world of pleasure. However, don't buy a Mac to play the latest games--the market just won't accommodate.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Is a Mac 'superior' at surfing the Internet? No.
Yes. With the advent of always on connections, the existance of worms began an increase the likes of which has never been seen before. Taking a windows PC and plugging it into any network connection that isn't behind your own firewall runs the risk of an infected computer in 5 minutes or less. To safely surf the internet on a PC you need at least, a firewall, virus scanner, ad aware or similar program, and a decent popup blocker. To do the same on a mac, you just need, well, a mac.
Now, you may argue that having virus protection and ad aware is just a minor step that users should know anyway, and I would say that indeed they should know it, but why waste system resources on such things?
Is a Mac 'superior' at sending/recieving email? No.
Again the answer is yes. A windows PC by default would download and activate embedded programs and files in emails, causing mass spreads of viruses. Again, further indoctrination of users to safe habits is always useful, but once again, the mac doesnot run these by default, and even if it did, it couldn't execute them.
Is a Mac 'superior' at performing standard office taks? (Make a spreadsheet, text document and so on.) Again, no.
This is once again another yes answer. Behavior on macs is very consistant through all applications, and simple basic features of the mac are shown to increase your effectiveness. It's probably not a largely noticeable difference in the application itself (infact I would argue that there's little difference if any there) but a system which lends itself to easily and effectively getting work done out of the box will shave time off of your activities.
Even non-professional and professional photo editing can be performed very adequetely on a Windows Based PC.
The key word here is adequetely. With a mac, it can be performed well. Infact, all the basic tools are included with the system, not only Photo, but video, DVD production, music production, all part of the basic tool set.
Sure, you might see some speed increase for some photo editing tasks on a Mac, but from what I have seen, shaving 10 seconds here and there, upwards of a minute here or there, means nothing to *home* users.
You underestimate what time means to a home user. Every 2 seconds wasted searching for a feature that isn't where it's supposed to be, every minute spent deciphering an error, every 30 seconds spent doing a mindlessly repetative series of steps that should be automated is a large chunk of time, and that time adds up to frustration.
There is a reason people beyond just geeks are beginning to seek an alternative to windows. It's no longer just "the way computers are" Computer users are beginning to realize that we can do better.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
People used to say, "Since an XBox is basically just a PC running windows, it will be very easy to port them over to PC."
But as we saw, it wasn't exactly the case. Only a handful of games have actually been ported over from XBox and as I recall Halo ran like crap until they patched it a couple times.
That doesn't make it more superior then linux, and the cost of PC hardware is cheaper then mac.
I really like mac's. I like their UI, and the feel of them. But I can build a much more powerful pc for my price range (usually 900-1200 USD) Mac's prices are just too high even if they supported games.
At least for me, there is always wine.
Is a Mac 'superior' at surfing the Internet? No.
Yes. With the advent of always on connections, the existance of worms began an increase the likes of which has never been seen before. Taking a windows PC and plugging it into any network connection that isn't behind your own firewall runs the risk of an infected computer in 5 minutes or less. To safely surf the internet on a PC you need at least, a firewall, virus scanner, ad aware or similar program, and a decent popup blocker. To do the same on a mac, you just need, well, a mac.
No, XP SP2 comes with a built in firewall. I also don't see how you can blame the operating system for adware, which is installed by the user when they download their porn dialer/KaZaa. I'm sure you'd get this sort of software for the mac if it was worth the effort on the part of Gator/whoever makes this junk.
Is a Mac 'superior' at sending/recieving email? No.
Again the answer is yes. A windows PC by default would download and activate embedded programs and files in emails, causing mass spreads of viruses. Again, further indoctrination of users to safe habits is always useful, but once again, the mac doesnot run these by default, and even if it did, it couldn't execute them.
Uh, there have been bugs in various MS email clients, none that recent.
All the recent worms/viruses that spread via email use attachments which they trick the user to open (which is now made very difficult on SP2), again this would affect the mac if it was worth the effort.
Is a Mac 'superior' at performing standard office taks? (Make a spreadsheet, text document and so on.) Again, no.
This is once again another yes answer. Behavior on macs is very consistant through all applications, and simple basic features of the mac are shown to increase your effectiveness. It's probably not a largely noticeable difference in the application itself (infact I would argue that there's little difference if any there) but a system which lends itself to easily and effectively getting work done out of the box will shave time off of your activities.
And the user interface of Microsoft Office is consistent across the suite.
Even non-professional and professional photo editing can be performed very adequetely on a Windows Based PC.
The key word here is adequetely. With a mac, it can be performed well. Infact, all the basic tools are included with the system, not only Photo, but video, DVD production, music production, all part of the basic tool set.
This is one point I agree with the parent with, Windows Movie Maker/included image software is pretty bad.
Sure, you might see some speed increase for some photo editing tasks on a Mac, but from what I have seen, shaving 10 seconds here and there, upwards of a minute here or there, means nothing to *home* users. You underestimate what time means to a home user. Every 2 seconds wasted searching for a feature that isn't where it's supposed to be, every minute spent deciphering an error, every 30 seconds spent doing a mindlessly repetative series of steps that should be automated is a large chunk of time, and that time adds up to frustration.
Most MS applications have a good (if not consistent between all MS software) user interface. I'm not sure what mindless repetitive tasks take 30 seconds as I've not found many, esp. in Office as you can record macros?
Apple knows there users groups they fall into one of three groups: Professional , Loyalist , or Educator.
Apple simply can not compete with the Windows market for porting games. It will also not help strengthen any of the other user groups. It is not Apple's responsibility to port games it is up to the developers to do that. Microsoft doesn't port games. So the articale should have said: If developers ported their games to the mac would you buy a mac to play them?
Apple has spent the last few years buying up programs to make Apple Pro software which help to fill in holes in their software coverage. Examples would be DVD Studio Pro , Motion , Finial Cut Pro and Shake.
Would John Q public buy a mac to play the newest games. The answer would be no, because a PC that can play the same game would be cheaper. Those that say yes either have to much money or would have bought a mac anyway, the fact it would play the newest games just sweets the deal.
Life is marked by pain.
- You will always be playing catch-up to Microsoft - you will never be caught up or ahead
- Microsoft might take legal action
Plus there's other things - like how installers for DirectX video card drivers are Windows specific, or the fact that the consensus is to come up with or enhance native cross platform alternatives instead of helping Microsoft.Schnapple
I know /. just eats up this kind of cynical jealousy of the upper middle class, but your post takes generalization to a whole new level.
Do you really think people go to starbucks to look cool? Do you think people use the headphones that came with their iPod because it's more prestigious than upgrading? Grow up. Most decisions people make follow the path of least resistance. What you fail to realize, is that people with disposable income have a different path of least resistance than you do.
If you made six figures, didn't have any children, and didn't know or care much about coffee, why would you make your own just to save $1 a day? If you buy an MP3 player to play over compressed hip-hop mp3s and you don't know/care about what audiophiles think, why would you do research to save $20 on headphones? Why would someone spend $3000 on a mac and hook it up to a Sony monitor just to save $100?
Yes, style makes the sale, but convenience, and indifference keeps them coming back. I can only guess the moderators chose Insightful because there was no moderation for Cynical.
I'm a die-hard Mac guy (well, I actually left the Mac during System 85.-9 because they sucked, but I came back for OS X and I'm never going back) and I fully agree with your points.
The Mac isn't nor will it ever be, a "gaming paltform". I buy Mac games: I have an unopened UT:2k4 box sitting next to me =) I'm not even going to bother installing it... I'm too busy playing Tribes:Vengance and DOOM3 on the Win2k box I build myself just to play games.
OS X is an amazing platform for just about everything. But, like Linux, it's not a gaming console. That's why Windows exists.
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
You are confused, Grasshopper. Macs are about 20% of the installed userbase. You are quoting sales figures but calling them installed base figures. People keep their Macs longer than PeeCees (and when they sell them, they fetch higher prices on eBay).
Yes. With the advent of always on connections, the existance of worms began an increase the likes of which has never been seen before. Taking a windows PC and plugging it into any network connection that isn't behind your own firewall runs the risk of an infected computer in 5 minutes or less. To safely surf the internet on a PC you need at least, a firewall, virus scanner, ad aware or similar program, and a decent popup blocker. To do the same on a mac, you just need, well, a mac.
As someone else mentioned.. SP2 now includes a builtin firewall. Also, Windows is just a bigger target for virii and spyware.. plain and simple. As for popup blocking or safer internet surfing.. I believe you are incorrectly drawing a relationship between SOFTWARE and the OS. Firefox is my default browser.. and I feel safer surfing around because of it.
Again the answer is yes. A windows PC by default would download and activate embedded programs and files in emails, causing mass spreads of viruses. Again, further indoctrination of users to safe habits is always useful, but once again, the mac doesnot run these by default, and even if it did, it couldn't execute them.
Again - you are basing your response on software and not the OS. Try Mozilla Thunderbird or some other email client other than Outlook and you don't have this problem.
This is once again another yes answer. Behavior on macs is very consistant through all applications, and simple basic features of the mac are shown to increase your effectiveness. It's probably not a largely noticeable difference in the application itself (infact I would argue that there's little difference if any there) but a system which lends itself to easily and effectively getting work done out of the box will shave time off of your activities.
Umm.. I believe the original poster was talking about spreadsheets, documents, etc. I.e. MS Office or OpenOffice type tasks. Since you can get both of these apps for either platform I dont see how one is better than the other.
The key word here is adequetely. With a mac, it can be performed well. Infact, all the basic tools are included with the system, not only Photo, but video, DVD production, music production, all part of the basic tool set.
Ding ding ding! I agree with you on this one.
You underestimate what time means to a home user. Every 2 seconds wasted searching for a feature that isn't where it's supposed to be, every minute spent deciphering an error, every 30 seconds spent doing a mindlessly repetative series of steps that should be automated is a large chunk of time, and that time adds up to frustration.
I assume you're relating this to photo editing like the original poster mentioned? If you are trying to compare iPhoto or something with any software bundled with XP then I agree. But any serious user uses Photoshop.. which again is available for both platforms.
No, XP SP2 comes with a built in firewall.
And OS X has had one since day 1.
I also don't see how you can blame the operating system for adware, which is installed by the user when they download their porn dialer/KaZaa.
Certainly you can, because these programs exploit weaknesses in the system. Furthermore, not all of this is installed by the user. Working at the IT department at a university, we took a fresh install of Windows XP SP 1 and stuck it unprotected on the network. This is a school with a mandatory virus scanner / spyware scanner policy. In 3 minutes, the system had 28 different worms and other malware programs without us acting at all.
I'm sure you'd get this sort of software for the mac if it was worth the effort on the part of Gator/whoever makes this junk.
All signs point to no. There's plenty of similar software for the mac, and yet, none of the develpoers have seen fit to do this.
Uh, there have been bugs in various MS email clients, none that recent.
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/11447
Combine with the image overflow error that Microsoft only recently patched, and that ammounts to a nasty, non user intervention problem.
All the recent worms/viruses that spread via email use attachments which they trick the user to open (which is now made very difficult on SP2)
How does SP2 prevent someone from opening a zip file?
again this would affect the mac if it was worth the effort.
Agreed, trojans would affect any system by their nature, however, the fact that opening up a simple zip file can infect your PC is something mac users do not deal with.
Furthermore, you continue to talk about how if there were more mac users, there would be more exploits, but this just does not seem to hold true. The number of mac users has been increasing, and yet there hasn't been an increase in viruses. Is user base a contributing factor? Of course. Is it the only factor or even the most important, not at all.
And the user interface of Microsoft Office is consistent across the suite.
But not among other applications. Consistancy applies outside of a set of apps as well.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
About the photo/image editing issue. I built a custom PC for doing my professional imaging work. I work with vector graphics images that can take minutes or even chunks of an hour to render(on any platform). Frankly, buying a Mac designed for this purpose would not be an economic option for me, but building a custom PC that blows most Macs out of the water, was easy, cheap and fun. Most large imaging and effects houses either switching to or are doing their rendering on Linux systems/clusters, as they are cheaper and more effective per dollar than Macs. The Mac is no longer the digital imaging powerhouse that it once was, sorry. I personally believe that the reason you still see widespread use of Macs in the graphic design/photography world is that the userbase is accustomed to using them, not because there is some magic Mac component that, per dollar spent on hardware, renders images faster.
My system is faster, cheaper and more versatile than any Mac I have ever used. The PC UI for most imaging programs is damn near the same as it is for Macs, I just have a 3-button mouse and a scroll wheel to increase my productivity even more. I can upgrade components without having to deal with the Apple pricing/ripoff structure. I can download all kinds of Windows programs to carry out unusual or minor tasks, and I can pop over to my Linux partition and work on stuff there. I can play all of the latest games (my work deals with video game imagery, this is key for me) and I don't have any security/firewall issues. I spend less than 5 minutes a week actively doing security on my box, too.
I agree that out of the box, Macs have vastly fewer security issues than Windows computers do. That is the only reason I would reccomend using one, for environments where you cannot trust your employees not to create big security holes.
Hi, I was the one that ported Unreal Tournament 2004 to the Mac...among other games. I'm probably qualified to speak to this.
There's an urban legend that Apple has a zero-tolerance policy for games. If you're an Apple employee writing a video game in your spare time, that's grounds for dismissal. Rumor is that this is not enforced, but still in the employee manual (or stone tablets outside 1 Infinite Loop or something).
This is probably not true, but it says a lot about the culture at Apple. Games are not in the business plan. At all. Since the Apple II was so wickedly ahead of everyone else in terms of game capabilities, a lot of people saw it as a "game system" or...well, a toy. Funny how that sort of thing blows up in your face, huh? So there's a historical bias against it at the upper levels. It's a flinch reaction. Several layers of upper management are going to have to retire or die (or both) before this attitude changes.
That being said, this article is pitching a silly (and unoriginal) idea. It's hard enough trying to evangelise the Mac to game publishers, but it gets even harder when Big Publisher starts asking the very legitimate question: "How come Apple put time, money, and manpower into porting Half-Life 2 and wants me to shoulder the port for my own title?"
A fair question, to be sure. Other results would be less concern at the original gamehouse for portability (we'll let Apple fix that) and the choking off of the few companies that are actually doing this today. Oh, and we haven't even gotten to the "could this even be profitable for Apple" question yet.
That being said, here're a few things Apple CAN be doing:
1) Get more developer relation people that do nothing but deal with games. These are the people game developers call when they need something done...OS bugs that need someone to fight for developer priority, hardware access, questions about marketing your product and general connecting of the right people. They also go to game developers/publishers to pitch the Mac and encourage them to see a profitable business model in Apple's platform. Apple used to have two of these people working this job. They now have one. I would bet that they'll have zero before 2005 is over. I suspect that the position is the red-haired stepchild of the company. I respect Rich for every day he gets up and continues to choose to go to work.
2) Backport OpenGL fixes. Apple's GL team is top-rate, but once they are working on a new release, you are out of luck. This is company policy, not the GL team's fault. Let me illustrate this for you. Right now you might be desperately trying to get a game running for Christmas, ported from a DirectX9-based game, and lo and behold, you find that a Pixel Shader you moved over to GL_ARB_vertex_program triggers a kernel panic in OSX. You get the team to look at it promptly, thanks to that one devrel soldier who's still standing, and it gets fixed, but the fix is rolled into Tiger.
Well, Tiger's not shipping for 6+ months, and you ain't shipping this Christmas. And when you do ship, you'll be telling a bunch of people that you need to buy a 150$ upgrade to the OS to play. This is more acceptable for Big Name Games, since somehow people will swallow this, albeit unhappily, when it's UT2004 or World of Warcraft. Will they swallow it for an indie game that's a 15 dollar, online-only purchase?
I'll be fair and say that, as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of Mac users upgrade to the latest OS anyhow, because generally the MacOS upgrades have been significantly compelling. When I screw up a Linux build in the year 2004 and a game stops running on a Red Hat 6.0 install from 1999, I get angry email. When ut2003 required people to upgrade to Jaguar, I never got a single bug report or complaint. Figure that one out. Still, if there is no upgrade path at all, you're timetable gets screwed. Put that shit in Software Update, Apple!
3) Give out free hardware, and give it out gratuitously. The Games Department (t
Don't say, "don't quote me," because if no one quotes you, you probably haven't said a thing worth saying.
No. Just because Macs are more obscure and thereby less exploited than PC's does NOT make them more secure. If people made a mass switch to Macs to avoid windows worms then Mac worms would flourish.
Actually, this is a logical fallacy. If that was truly the case, then we would be constantly hearing about how inecure the Apache web-server is, since it is used to run more web-sites then any other web-server. However, Microsoft IIS is the most cracked web-server even though it serves less then 25% of the web-server market.
The rest of your response, minuse the fanboy reference, if spot on.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I like to play games. But I switched anyway because the experience was so compelling.
I used to have a desktop PC, on which I played a lot of games. Then I got a Powerbook. After that, it was Game Over, so to speak - how could you go back to using Windows after using OS X for a while? I was tired of the video card upgrade treadmill anyway, and decided that for the majority of my gaming needs I'd just buy a console.
That has worked out very well. If you think about it, how many great titles have been released for the PC that are not also around on the console? Most game development energy focuses on the console world now, so if you are any kind of gamer you have a console anyway. And more than ever truly great games come to the console first and the PC second.
It's true that Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are the major exceptions to this point. But although I'll not be able to play HL2 come launch day, I probably will within a year when the console version is released. And in the meantime there are a slew of equally compelling games for the consoles - like Halo 2 of course which I feel has a storyline (or at least a backstory) to equal that of HL, or GTA (whcih will come to the PC eventually), or a number of other AAA titles coming out this Christmas season. Both Doom 3 and HL 2 are holdouts from an earlier time, how many more spectacular games will we really see come out for the PC first?
The author of the first post makes a great point. I have seen countless posts saying the only thing holding them back from getting a Mac is games. But to those people I would say, buy a few consoles, get keyboards and mice for them to make FPS's tolerable, and drop the monkey that is your PC.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Polliana writes "For every great game there is for Linux, there are like what, at least 500 for Windows? It's sad, but it's a fact. This article proposes a solution, and it's for Linus Torvalds to port games. By the way, since the Windows uses the intel archetecure, it shouldn't be that difficult to port future Windows games to intel and amd based machines, both of which are 32-bit now. Would you buy Linux if you could play Counterstrike Source and Half-Life 2? What other games are missing from Linux?"
What I've noticed about Macs is that even though there are less games total, there are a greater ratio of GOOD titles to sucky, buggy, amateurish games. Having less of a selection might not sound like an advantage to most people, but it is to casual gamers and impulse buyers.
o r-a-girlfriend crowd.
Also because the Mac hardware platform allows fewer permutations than a PC, when I spend my tiny gaming budget on a product, I'll have a greater assurance it'll work. I gave up PC gaming because I was sick of fiddling with drivers, patches, and so forth.
I'll give you that Mac gaming is not for the hardcore. But it's good for the three-games-a-year-because-i-have-a-job-or-a-kid-
A bigger problem I think is release timing. When games come out for the Mac, it is often weeks or months or even years behind the PC and console releases. This makes it hard for Mac gamers to find people to play online with as by the time we get the damn thing, PC gamers have gotten bored with it and have moved on to the next big thing.
Apple isn't a gaming company and it is a bad idea for them to port games. However they do have resources for gaming developers and they work with the likes of Aspyr and Westlake to port games.
However gaming isn't the cure for Apple's market share woes. Mac gamers can get a cheap PC or a console to play non Mac games on. That is what I do, though I do buy the Mac game ports so that I support the mac gaming community at the same time.
Apple's main push is in usability and productivity of the computer user, the area where they shine and that is where their main focus should be. They can continue to make porting games easier for developers, but they should do no more than that. The developers can take Apple's help or they can sell less games. It's their choice.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Oh, I see... people who play Half-life aren't "gamers". Only those of us who spend over $1000 on our system can qualify for that prestigious title. The facts speak for themselves, far more people use nVidia than ATi, and with good reason.
Look, I've got a 9800 in my gaming system and put a 9700 in my fiance's, so both systems are counted towards ATi. Would I say they're good cards? No. Would I buy ATi again? No. Owning ATi has been nothing but a pain. Drivers that don't work in games, have anomolies in some, crash on others. I shouldn't have to roll back a driver to play a game properly.
This round I'm going back to nVidia.
Because we know that EVERYONE plays Counter-strike.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I wouldn't connenct any any machine to the net without firewall and anti-virus. Really, nobody should. It isn't like non-Windows OS don't have secureity alerts. Less certainly, but one virus or guy owning your machine is enough.
2
Well certainly. And you shouldn't have sex without protection, that doesn't mean I'm going to go knock up a hooker.
If your right, and the Mac does become more popular, these unprotected people are going to be firing viruses around just like their unprotected PC counterparts. It certainly isn't a waste of system resources to prevent that.
So far, this just hasn't born out to be true. Mac users have increased, but the virus numbers have remained constant.
As for websurfing experience, IE on the PC gives you better site compatability that anyother browser/OS. Personally, I use Firefox whenever possible, still need IE for some things. Even Mac IE isn't compatable with the latest IE (IIRC it's more standards compliant in some areas). For a surfing experience (rather than staying secure), Windows/IE still beats anything else, although the gap is closing.
True, but that has other reasons behind it (namely IE is no longer standalone and thus not developed for mac anymore. But surfing is more than just the rendering. The whole experience is part of it. And living in constant fear that the next page you visit will own your computer is hardly a good experience, no matter how good the technicolor looks. (I exaggerate of course, but the point remains)
Adware is a very Windows-centric problem. For techy types it's rarely an issue, but for average users who often don't know they have it, using a Mac they certainly wouldn't get the hassles. The catch 22 is the users who know using a Mac would avoid the issue are the ones who could easily avoid it on the PC.
But it's still expended energy and time.
I don't think it's ever been true, certainly not for a whule, although for a long time you could trick Outlook and OE into doing that. If anything now Outlook is too secure and won't let you open some stuff at all. Besides, loads of people use non MS mail software, lets not confuse Windows with MS software.
It was default, it isn't anymore, but it's been all to easy to trick it for so long, and every new version seems to have a new way of doing it.
As for the software vs OS issue, since it's installed by default, it's part of the OS. I wouldn't buy a car that I had to replace the drive system before it could be used safely. Why would I buy a computer that needed stuff to be replaced before it could be used safely?
I'm not at all convinced that using the same software (office, photoshop, whatever) the Mac is more productive. Mac users will be, becuase they know and like that. A lot is going to come down to preferance and familiarity. Looking for some feature in a program is really down to the program design, not the OS.
I reference you here:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=223
There are just some things about the OS that encourage faster more productive work.
I'm also sceptical about these non-geeks embracing non-Windows, where are they? Why aren't they reflected in sales? I do think for a relatively clueless users who just wants web, mail, and some media stuff they will be better off with a Mac. You do have to learn less to keep it running OK.
They're not reflected in sales
1) because nothing else is being sold.
2) because nothing else is providing the total package they want
that said, new mac sales have gone up
In all, I don't hate windows, I just find it inferrior
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I dont see the justification when a new console costs just as much as the equivalent graphics card needed for new titles. I'm sure this will be the case for the X-Box 2 (or whatever they call it). Probably even more so if the gfx arch is kick-ass. I can see the desire for having a single appliance that does it all, but those days are rapidly coming to an end...
PC (Mac) games are slowly dying IMO -- There just isn't a compelling reason to buy a game for a home computer when a console can host the same titles with essentially plug and play ease of use and arguably better production values in some cases (which, admittedly, is wierd, since most of them use the same assets for the port.. but I guess it has to do with supporting all the various hw combinations... oh well). Plus the software house can make money on the console version much easier than the PC version for one big reason (that I list below).
I think people usually want home computer games for the following three reasons:
* They want bleeding edge gfx titles. Usually predictable boring FPSs with awesome gfx engines that dont matter for playability. What's most popular FPS of late? Halo on an xbox...now Halo2.. not even a cutting edge engine really... just a good game with great production values. I think Doom3 and the subsequent disappointment post release in indicative for the future of those titles and pretty much the death knell of the gfx card/fps race. I mean, it wasn't even that pretty compared to the last generation.
* Simulation. You need processor and RAM that the consoles dont have. Not many people are truly hardcore about their sims, most want a good game. It's hard to sell a completely hardcore sim. Arguably, Colin McRae and Grand Turismo are the best driving sim games you can get right now.. both are available on consoles -- one is exclusive to a console. But most of the good stuff is home computer only, making this reason really the only real justification IMO for wanting a home computer game.
* Cheap. The unspoken reason -- and I honestly believe the real motivating reason people whine about not having a home computer port of a particular game -- you dont need a modchip to dload the cracked version of the game. Obviously, this alone puts PC's *way* far back in relation to consoles as far as the market is concerned.
I've long been a supporter of portable games and I'm the guy who wrote or championed Unix-y ports of Doom, Quake, and Abuse back in 1993-1996 (http://davetaylor.name), but Mac is still a pain in the ass.
As I'm sure most of you suspect, porting to the Mac is not as easy as "make", even assuming a similar arch to the Xbox2.
The reason developers opt to make their games portable to multiple platforms now is that they want $8M to make their game instead of $6M, and the only way the publisher will approve it is if the developer commits to a multiplatform release, so that they can see more sales.
The Mac game market is still very small, unfortunately, so it doesn't qualify as a viable platform for the publishers. And although the similar endianness of the Mac does make porting easier, it's not a single platform, but a collection of similar platforms, which means you're signing up for a customer support headache, just like you are with the PC. The additional customer support costs, the differing marketing channels and strategies, the inventory mgmt, and sales effort of maintaining an extra SKU, are usually sufficient distraction to knock down a Mac port proposal.
But that's not the whole story. It turns out that Mac owners suffer from accute good taste, which has something to do with why they've historically paid a premium for a pretty, inferior computer.
Only since MacOS X emerged from an awkward puberty has the Mac become a pretty, superior computer to the PC, but it turns out that Mac owners are still the cause of some aesthetic grief. If you do a straight port to the Mac, instead of adding the features and looks that Mac users insist upon so that their Mac apps feel Mac-y, then you get panned in reviews.
I agree with another poster's comment that Apple should either do the ports or fund developers to do ports. I think this would be good for them not only because it would bring more games to the Mac but because it would viscerally illuminate to them the annoying demographic and business side-effects of porting to the Mac, and going through it enough times might inspire solutions.
Sadly, I've recently asked after this, and they are not interested.
On the bright side, they are aggressively going after the top-20 PC games and making sure they get ports. This is smart but not brilliant. Brilliant would be creating incentives for developers to maintain Mac portability from the start.
For instance, I've often thought that iTunes, had they not signed multiple deals with multiple devils to launch it, could be the solution to the distribution dilemna for unsigned composers. If Apple made a similar online distribution store for Mac games, where the developer/publisher could enjoy massive margins that put the retailers to shame, this could be the cookie developers need to pull the trigger.
Pulling that particular iTunes-y solution out of my bum probably too early in the morning w/o sufficient coffee, but my point is that Jobs certainly has the scratch, balls, and brains to make it an attractive platform, but it isn't quite there yet.
I own a Mac and a Linux box. Just because there are more PC games does not mean that they are good, just that game players buy more. Anything good and has a future usually comes out for Mac and or Linux, examples, UT2004, Quakex, etc.
Hard core gamers don't care about the OS, what matters is the hardware needed to run the game, and being able to customise that hardware, x86 wins, and it will for years to come, thanks to the rule of numbers, not because of Windows or Mac.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I love the line "it shouldn't be that difficult to port future XBox games to the Power Mac G5" ... some people have no concept at all in what is involved in moving an application from one system to another, just because the CPU is the same doesn't mean it'll magically convert itself :-)