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."

Comments

DirectX

[jtshaw]

"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."

What about those games tooled towards DirectX... it isn't the architecture screwing us here...it is the lack of DirectX for OSX that is screwing us.

Re:DirectX

[Cthefuture]

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).

Re:DirectX

[FLAGGR]

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?

Hmmm

[Auckerman]

Games are only relevent when you start thinking about APIs. With DirectX being Windows only, I really don't see how it's going to be that much easier to port.

The one issue it might solve is byte order problems (big/little endian) on the graphics cards. Though, theres going to be no guarantee that drivers for OS X for any off the shelf card is actually going to be any good.

It may be some time before Apple gets around to even caring that the Half Life 2 market exists, much less builds machines to compete in that market.

Re:Hmmm

[Auckerman]

"Apple writes all the drivers for OS X in the video department."

I doubt that. Even given that, my point went right over your head. You see, Mac users can't just buy off the shelf PC video cards put them in their macs, even if the mac had drivers for it. The ROM on the card is set for little endian, when macs use big endian. Making Mac cards more expensive (only difference being the rom and the box it came in). IIRC, there are ways of working around this, but they require a lot more patience than I've cared to have.

With the switch to Intel processors, the graphics cards will be physically identical in every way to the ones Windows uses, making using them easier. This means, the premium charge you had no choice to pay for being a mac customer will be gone. As people/companies write drivers for cards, one will be able to use those cards instead of the stock one that came with the mac.

Death of Mac games

[squiggleslash]

If you can run Windows on a Mac, which Apple has pretty much confirmed you'll be able to:

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

then I'm pretty sure most game developers will target Windows, and look at OS X much the same way as they do GNU/Linux. "We can sell to this crowd, they just have to set up their machines to dual boot."

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.

Re:Death of Mac games

[FLAGGR]

Do you honestly think someone is going to buy a Apple computer to run Windows? That's why they aren't going to "do anything to preclude that", because no one would honestly do such a thing. Maybe they would dual boot if they were intelligent enough, or maybe just run Windows in VirtualPC like I do now on my macmini.

p.s. the reason MS isn't looking upset about the switch is a) because it was yesterday, MS hasn't commented yet b) If they were upset do you think they'd show it?

Re:Death of Mac games

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

No. I said that if Apple computers can run Windows, it's more reasonable for a game developer to presume you will dual boot if you want to play their games than to spend the development time porting it. Take a look at the GNU/Linux situation with games.

How much does a copy of Windows cost, retail? You seem to be making the assumption that all macs will have windows, but unlike pretty much all Linux boxes, Apple will not be paying MS a fee for every box and will not be including Windows. Any game developer who assumes that mac users can "just boot into Windows" is assuming that either all mac users will go out, buy Windows, and install it alongside or replacing OS X (which ain't gonna happen) or they are assuming everyone will pirate Windows and do the same (which is only a little less likely). There are plenty of game makers that develop for the mac because they make money doing so. Those that make stupid assumptions, like you are claiming they will, will lose a good chunk of that money. Those that continue to make mac native versions will make that money. It does not take a genius to figure out that most people are not going to install Windows on their macs (Aside from some geeks).

That said, a WINE solution is a possibility. I could see a lot of game makers contributing to and writing for WINE implementation to try to sell to the mac market with less dev time/cost.

Re:Death of Mac games

[squiggleslash]

You are misinformed. The intel based macs will most likely be running a custom BIOS, not on compatible with Windows by default

You're accusing me of being misinformed?

Apple has said, outright, they intend to do nothing to prevent Windows from running. That's a fact. It's been widely quoted.

Most mac users (like most Windows users) do not dual boot their systems, or even have any idea how to partition and install a second OS

That's because there's no benefit to them as yet. What is the incentive to install OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, or AIX, on their other partition?

There's a huge incentive to install Windows on an ix86 based Mac. Out of the box, your choice of games, if you're interested in them, becomes pretty much the sum total of almost every game written since the mid nineties.

They certainly don't know how to, or don't care to hack their BIOS, which may be necessary.

Oh goodness gracious! What are you talking about? To remind you, we're talking about Apple shipping PCs with one minor change - they'll come with a version of OS X installed by default that can detect whether it's running on Apple hardware. That's it. You don't have to "hack the BIOS" to dual boot on any PC made now. Why, oh why, are you pretending such a thing will be necessary just because it has the word "Apple" on the front?

A wine style port will have a very large footprint, but will probably be used by some game developers once the project is up and running well on OS X. Wine ports of some games may be fine, while others will suck very badly (depending on the type of game and controls).

Sure. But you're missing the point here. The point is that developers are no longer going to care about porting games. There's a fairly large expense associated with doing so, and those developers are going to see little point in doing this themselves when Codeweavers can do it for them, and if Codeweavers eff up, the serious gamers will probably already have Windows anyway.

I know why you're arguing against this. You're arguing because I'm telling you stuff you don't want to hear. That's why you're making stuff up, pretending that Apple is going to disable Windows, or that dual booting is somehow hard (it's not even hard on a real Mac, believe me.) You're saying "This is going to suck, I'll have to run Windows or use a poor clone of the Windows API that might not run the games I want the way I want them". And you know what, you're right. But you're failing to look at the bigger picture. The developers are interested in making games that people will buy. Serious gamers will get Windows. Non-serious gamers will probably get Windows anyway, if only to help see the occasional website under IE or use some bit of software from the office. For the rest, open sourcers can help. It's no longer a matter of emulating a CPU, just an API. No, it'll not be perfect, but hey, that's your fault, you should have installed Windows, right?

If you really think most users are going to install a second OS and reboot every time they want to play a game, well you're an idiot.

Thanks, but I think the truth is you're delusional. Most people will look at the relative merits, and realise they don't have a choice in the matter. Just as now, the majority of games will be Windows-only. Just as now, the Mac games that exist will generally cost more than their PC counterparts. Those sales can and will dwindle as the majority of people put two and two together and realise they're better off buying Windows games than Mac games. There will be multiple ways in which those games can be run, but at least one of them will involve dual booting.

Will 90% of the Mac market not install Windows? I don't know. But I can tell you that 90% will probably not be playing many games.

This doesn't make porting ANY easier

[WouldIPutMYRealNameO]

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.

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 :) If OS X is significantly more efficient than WinXP, then people will really start to target Macs as development platforms.

Not so fast

[nigham]

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?

Re:I Make Mac Games

[FLAGGR]

Your right, increased market share over the past quater is a surefire sign of it. Let's have an eulegy please.

Re:Marketing Scheme

[anaesthetica]

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.

this whole thing is really odd....

[Malor]

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.

Re:this whole thing is really odd....

[Bustbang]

The name of the computer was osborne not amstrad.
Here explains the osborne effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Osborne

Re:this whole thing is really odd....

[mh101]

Apple has always known about this, and has been very aggressive about not preannouncing ANYTHING, so as to not hurt sales of existing products. [snip] 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 you state, unlike a new product like the Mac Mini or iPod Shuffle, they can't wait until the last minute to let the world know about it. They have to tell the developers about this well in advance, and I'm certain it's not feasable to put every single Mac software developer in the world under an NDA.

But if I can speculate, I would assume that, with technologies such as Rosetta and their Universal Binary system, your average user won't even know, or care, what the underlying architecture is, as the overall user experience would be identical.

I see this more akin to General Motors stating that next year's Sunfires and Cavaliers would be using chassis x instead of chassis y. As long as the experience is still excellent, the end user won't really care much, and won't hold off on buying their cars. Of course, I'm speaking about average joe users here, not the typical Slashdot crowd who actually understand these under-the-hood things...

Re:this whole thing is really odd....

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't see what the problem is. They survived a hardware architecture transition like this before, but this time it is supposed to be easier.

As for the PPC emulation they ran the PPC version of Photoshop CS2 and it ran pretty well on the Mactel box. Not that it is a problem for Photoship, the Adobe CEO spoke at the Keynote commiting to supporting Mactel & Mac PPC in Universal Binary for many years with all their current Mac PPC product lines.

Apple said they will support PPC for years after they've stopped selling the machines. Any developer running Xcode right now has very minimal work to port, and once ported, they can keep the PPC compatibility by just making sure that little check box is checked.

Re:this whole thing is really odd....

[Smurf]

Their existing sales are going to drop, perhaps precipitously, while they try to figure out how to make OSX on Intel work.

OS X already works on Intel. Yesterday's demo was delivered using Tiger running on a Mac/Intel machine (3.6 GHz Pentium 4). Jobs even confessed that all previous versions of MacOS X have always been compiled for Intel also. (Of course the existence of project Marklar had always been rumored, he just confirmed it).

Xcode 2.1 was also released yesterday, providing cross-compilation and production of "universal" (fat) binaries. The developers got a copy yesterday at WWDC, and it's a free download for the rest of us. Of course we don't have the hardware to test the Intel binaries, but some of the developers will get Mac/Intel prototypes in two weeks to start testing their apps, and correcting the platform-specific issues.

Re:I Make Mac Games

[PierceLabs]

Good. That means you should be willing to sell that G5 pretty cheap then.

emulation is better for games than most things

[Heisenbug]

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. ...

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 ... 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.