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?"
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.
Would you buy a Mac if you could play Counterstrike Source and Half-Life 2?
No, I already bought a mac for its existing great games. I've nearly completed Photoshop CS. The end guy is hard.
Considering how closely the Source engine is tied to DirectX, it's unlikely that it would be easy to port it to another OS.
While the HL2 leak had support for OpenGL rendering, the current version of CS: Source does not even allow you to choose that. You're probably looking at a near-total rewrite if you want to run HL2 on another OS that doesn't support MS' APIs.
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 agree, except for the fact that some games are just made to be used with a mouse and keyboard. I'd hate to play Myst, Might and Magic or Civilization II on a console. Thankfully with keyboards and mouses coming becoming more common then before for consoles, this may no longer be an issue.
um... warcraft3 is not an FPS, yet barfs out on my iMac when the fighting goes up. The new Sims version looks like crap if you haven't got the VRAM for sufficient textures. More and more games, even not 3D, require a powerful 3D card, just as much as an OS wants a serious graphics card.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
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..
Today's FoxTrot seems particularly apropos.
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.
Why would porting xbox game to the Mac convince users to eschew their PCs. First, Xbox games are often water down versions of their PC cousins. These games lack features of PC games because the Xbox hardware is static and can't evolve with newer game engines like the PC can. But, Xbox games are going to make the Mac better at gaming. Is a user going to pay 2000+ for xbox quality games. Why not just buy an xbox and pay 300 at the most. Apple has it strengths and gaming is not one of them. Video are not updated on Macs as they are on PCs. Even if we had the latest games, we won't have the latest hardware. Besides, Apple is doing just fine. Look at thier stock price (50+), they are not reeling from the lack of games on the platform
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
This is really unfair flaming. I've been using Windows ME ever since I bought a Dell box 4 years ago. I have never seen a BSOD. It locks up randomly without a BSOD. I believe its a feature to remind you to save your documents frequently.
Sleep is for the Weak
Also with respect, Macs are not overpriced, this has been argued many times here in the past. It's only overpriced if you don't pay for your software on x86.
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 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
Ahem, perhaps you didn't check very hard:
http://www.coderus.com/
This has been out for a while, for porters only granted; but that is a big step.
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.
Stop and think for a long moment...
DirectX compatibility is only needed if you're simply recompiling for a new target. Most games abstract out the DirectX layer for their engine so they're not dealing with it directly (You'd be stupid to do anything else, really...) therefore it's only a small effort to provide a comparable OpenGL specific layer. Once you've done that, that's one less thing. Typically, most games are using FMOD, Miles, or SDL/OpenAL for their sound. That means the sound is taken care of. It's a minimal effort to make a version of user input code for SDL (your Linux and MacOS X choice...) to replace your DirectInput code. There's several cross-platform choices for network support and while it's an effort to make something work as a replacement for DirectPlay code, it's been done (I know, I've done it myself and helped produce a minimal wrapper layer to allow several pieces of code simply recompile for Linux.) What you speak of simply isn't really much of an impediment for anything except the smallest development studios producing valueware as they're coding strictly to DirectX because it costs them nothing at all.
The biggest impediment for most studios, typically, for going to PPC is that most games make assumptions about the order of bytes, etc. that are far, far removed from best practices. Assumptions that make for difficult migration of code. The same goes for going from 32 to 64 bits- many developers do things like assume pointers are the same size as ints and proceed to interchange them liberally.
If you're making a game for PPC64, those impediments go bye-bye for making a MacOSX game- and since MS is going to probably be suggesting that the games be made available for XP on x86, the code's probably going to be endian neutral as well.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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
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.