Slashdot Mirror
Mac Game Devs Speak on Intel Move
An Anonymous Reader wrote "InsideMacGames has posted a response to the news of Apple using Intel processors from both original Mac game developers as well as people who work on porting Windows games to OS X. Some negative and positive feedback is expressed, though it seems there's more uncertainty than anything else at this point. Can the fear of a Wine-like VM solution gutting the biz be balanced by faster CPU speeds?" From the article: "We think Apple's move to Intel is great. For one thing, it demonstrates that Apple is really serious about giving Windows-based computing head-to-head competition. For another, it lays the groundwork for the future of personal computing in a digitally connected home. And, for another, it's going to narrow the gap between the release of a game on Windows and the release on Mac -- maybe to zero."
Endian issues are minor though (usually not a problem at all) compared to the API differences.
I don't see the difference between porting between Windows/Linux, and Windows/OS X (Intel). The same problems will still be there.
I don't see Linux ports all over the place dispite the fact that my CPU and even my hardware is the same as I use in Windows. I don't see why OS X would be any different (other than industry support, but that doesn't make it easier).
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Not that I don't hope I'm wrong, but I suspect this is why Microsoft isn't looking that upset about the switch right now.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This won't decrease the gap between porting games. Though I am not a professional game developer, I find it hard to imagine that modern games have much (if any) assembler content in them. Any language higher level than assembly was already able to be compiled for other CPUs - so the actual machine instructions have never been a problem.
:) If OS X is significantly more efficient than WinXP, then people will really start to target Macs as development platforms.
Endianness is a small issue, really there are only a few places that you need to fix up for that, so that has never been a real problem.
The APIs that you use to make your game are the big problems, DirectX for example.
There are a couple of things that do make this better for Mac gamers. Raw computing power for the Mac user base will generally rise, after all how many people are trying (and failing) to run games on underpowered iBooks?
Now if Apple supports and promotes OpenGL2.0 and perhaps OpenAL, then maybe game developers will target those APIs. In which case porting between Windows and OS X should be easier.
The truely interesting thing is that we are going to see how much OS overhead there is between Windows and OS X - a more Apples to Apples comparison
Damnit - I wanted my nick to be "WouldIPutMYRealNameOnSlashdot"
And, for another, it's going to narrow the gap between the release of a game on Windows and the release on Mac -- maybe to zero.
Just because Mac is running on x86 doesn't mean that games will automatically be ported to a Mac more easily. Linux runs on Intel and x86, need I say more?
I don't want to read
First off, disclaimer: I'm running a mac mini that dual boots gentoo and osx, I'm not a linux hater and not trying to start a flame war or anything. Anyways, reasons why they would port to osx and not *nix:
1. Apple has more desktop market share (Probably more total market share, but if not then definantly for marketshare) If they switch to Intel I can only assume their market share will increase even more (as it has been lately)
2. Most linux users are badly spoiled by free software. Sorry but its true, not a very pretty market for game producers (I'm that no one would pay, but I can see a large sum of the *nix users I know bitching about how the game wasn't free)
3. Coding for OSX is easier than coding for *nix (Worrying about whether your game works with distro xyz release 123.abc, with system configured in such-and-such a way etc)
4. Apple's gaming/graphics/gui API's are more advanced then anything on linux, theres no way you can argue that kde/gnome/etc comes anywhere close to the technical poweress (not to mention looks) of Aqua
5. Go out into public, ask people if they know what apple/mac/etc is (not the fruit), and then ask them what linux/tux/gnu/etc is, want to wager on the results?
Your right, increased market share over the past quater is a surefire sign of it. Let's have an eulegy please.
Those benches may still be spot on. Marketing won't have to dramatically reverse their spin, because Apple won't be using Pentium 4's. They're much more likely to use some sort of souped-up Pentium M. Then they can still claim to be the latest and greatest.
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
It's a very weird idea... it feels a bit like waking up in the Twilight Zone or something.
I forget the name offhand, but there was an early computer company, possibly Amstrad, that preannounced that they were coming out with this really amazing new machine. Customers loved the idea, and stopped buying all the existing machines. Sales dropped to 0 and they died before they could get the new hotness out the door.
Apple has always known about this, and has been very aggressive about not preannouncing ANYTHING, so as to not hurt sales of existing products. This violates that precept so badly that I can't help but think it's prompted by panic (or anger, as some have hypothesized). I'm not sure whether or not it's a bad idea. Their existing sales are going to drop, perhaps precipitously, while they try to figure out how to make OSX on Intel work. But if they didn't preannounce, then the developers wouldn't have time to get ready for the transition, which could potentially be worse.
As an aside, PPC emulation is never going to be very good, and all that specially tuned Altivec code has just been junked. That's a huge investment down the drain.
They have to know that this is a bet-the-business move. They'll have to execute nearly perfectly, and very quickly, to make this happen without pissing off too many people. And they're going to have to continue to execute flawlessly for a long while. Apple's good at that, but this is asking an awful lot of their engineers. They must really believe their backs are against the wall.
I wish them well, but there are soooo many ways they could screw this up.
If Windows apps can run on Intel-based Macs, at full frame rates, with all the features turned on, the effect on Mac gaming could be devastating. ...
... but if not being able to play the latest 3D games is a problem for you, I imagine you'll have gotten around to it, somehow.
OK, I can definitely see how the effect on Mac game porting jobs will be devastating, but that quote actually sounds pretty sweet to me as a Mac user. The thing is, running most non-native apps (eg OpenOffice) on a Mac sucks, because the interface isn't Mac-like enough. But 3D games are the one case where that doesn't matter -- they all have their own (crappy) interfaces anyway. If this change means that there are half as many real ports, but twice as many game companies who make sure their title plays on a Mac via emulation, I have trouble seeing the long-term problem. This won't affect normal GUI apps -- any Mac GUI app that isn't friendly enough gets beat down by one that is.
Short term, of course, it will suck if the shift to emulation happens before you've had a chance to upgrade to a macintel