Slashdot Mirror


Valve's Gabe Newell on Apple's Gaming Failures

The site Kikizo has up a lengthy interview with Gabe Newell, co-founder of Valve and one of the minds behind the Half-Life 2 games. Though their discussion centers around the Orange Box (slated for release soon) and the titles contained therein, the discussion kicks off with Newell's scathing dress-down of Apple's understanding of the importance of gaming: "We tried to have a conversation with Apple for several years, and they never seemed to... well, we have this pattern with Apple, where we meet with them, people there go 'wow, gaming is incredibly important, we should do something with gaming'. And then we'll say, 'OK, here are three things you could do to make that better', and then they say OK, and then we never see them again. And then a year later, a new group of people show up, who apparently have no idea that the last group of people were there, and never follow though on anything. So, they seem to think that they want to do gaming, but there's never any follow through on any of the things they say they're going to do. That makes it hard to be excited about doing games for their platforms."

217 comments

  1. Hey! They got games for Mac too... by StringBlade · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    1. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by hansamurai · · Score: 3, Funny

      All the Mac gaming spoof videos to post and you post that one?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-ekl_cEWk

      There's a classic.

    2. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by weave · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but you know, when I go into a store now, there's only like six games for the PC too. Everything is for consoles now days. Gaming on the PC seems to be dying. :(

    3. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Don't go to those loser Gamestop stores....

      PC gaming is alive and well.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Yosho · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are you talking about? It's a great game.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    5. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except it isn't.

      A common error people make is to compare the sales of console games for EVERY console platform to PC game sales.

      When you compare PC game sales to individual consoles, the PC sells more games than the 360, PS3, or Wii. Halo 3 might be an exception, but that's a blip, a temporary boost that doesn't happen every week.

      So of the four platforms, the PC is on top. How, then, is PC gaming dying if it's the leading platform?

    6. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by StringBlade · · Score: 1

      Did you happen to notice that the video you linked references the one I linked?

      Not saying one's better than the other, just saying I liked to the TrueNuff.com video because arguably it was "first".

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    7. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by nanowired · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I loved all the "apple vs PC" clones out there.

      what was really funny, however, was the one mac supporter who used someone else's work than cut in to try to defend why Apples are better for gaming.
      In short, he said
      1) Consoles are "teh" better for gaming than PCs!
      2) only kiddies who know nothing about computers use PCs for games!
      3) Mac's Hardware is up to par! really it is.

      I have no doubt that Mac's hardware cant run most games on the market, considering that all of the hardware - or close to it- is the same as what you can put in a PC. I do doubt that kiddies who know nothing about computers would go for a PC instead of a Console, which only requires the most rudimentary knowledge to use. Also I doubt the knowledge of the User has anything to do with the game system itself.

      The problem With the Apple and Games Debate lies in two places.
      First, the fact that Apple's attitude is not Gamer friendly - despite the fan base who insists its so.

      Second, the fact that a Gamer can build his gaming platform for abouts 500 dollars. Thats the same price as a PS3, yet more useful. If you include the 200 dollars for a GOOD monitor, versus the 500 dollars for a Good TV, its much cheaper or on par than the Next Gen consols. Its not the top of the line, smoking down the road PC, but it will run most games. In the mean time, A new apple costs 2000 dollars. As far as to replacing individual parts in an Apple? I've been told two sides to this. One half of the Apple Fan base insists that its as easy to do with a PC - however mysteriously no one assembles their own Apple Computer through parts bought off of New Egg. The other half insists that Its nearly impossible to upgrade your Mac without sending it in.

      As for me, I'm no windows fan. Vista has proven to be a big joke. However until someone comes out with am OS that runs on the hardware I have that has real games(read:Not minesweeper) developed for it, I'm sticking to Windows.

    8. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      How, then, is PC [...] dying if it's the leading platform?

      It runs BSD?
    9. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah yes, but you know, when I go into a store now, there's only like six games for the PC too. Everything is for consoles now days. Gaming on the PC seems to be dying. :( Could have fooled me. There are so many games out right now that I simply don't have time to play through them all. Granted, I'm a pretty busy guy, but I still spend what is probably considered a greater-than-average amount of gaming and I simply don't have a hope of finishing all of my games. On top of this, there are some incredible gaming experiences on the PC that one simply doesn't really ever finish, such as WoW (and of course other MMORPGs), Civilisation IV, and bundles of pure awesomeness such as TF2.

      Personally, I think console gamers as a group are somewhat prone to fanboyism and thus are extraordinarily vocal in terms of attacking anything that isn't related to the console of their choice. The obvious attack against PC gaming is that it's "dying", even as console companies are working feverishly to turn their consoles into an almost PC-like experience with hard-drives, networked and online gaming, and improved pointing devices like the Wiimote.

      To be honest, I'm not sure why so many people feel the need to slag other people's gaming systems. We're all gamers, and we all benefit from the various innovations that come from the various forms of gaming. If one of the consoles makers manages to come up with a system that provides a definitive gaming experience, I won't cling to my PC stubbornly. Conversely, if gaming on the PC offers up something that consoles simply can't supply, console gamers would do well to pay attention and applaud, rather than slag it.

      Now, innovation in gaming just needs to continue until I can retire in, say thirty or forty years, having buckets of cash to spend on the new systems and all the time in the world to play!
      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    10. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by ben+there... · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but you know, when I go into a store now, there's only like six games for the PC too. There's your first mistake. You went into a brick and mortar store looking for PC games. Steam? Newegg? Direct2Drive? All eating away at the shelf space. Doesn't mean PC games are any less popular.
    11. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 1
      Ah yes, because you can't buy console games at newegg, or any other online retailer for that matter.


      And lets be honest, sales from services like Steam and Direct2Drive are rather insignificant compared to that coming from brick and mortar stores, that is if they ever actually released those numbers.


      Not to mention recently you have such time vacuums like World of Warcraft that have been drying up PC gaming dollars that might go elsewhere. Consoles don't really have that problem, yet.

    12. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by ben+there... · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah yes, because you can't buy console games at newegg, or any other online retailer for that matter. Not that it's relevant. What matters is what percentage of sales for PC or consoles is made online. Spare the sarcasm.

      And lets be honest, sales from services like Steam and Direct2Drive are rather insignificant compared to that coming from brick and mortar stores, that is if they ever actually released those numbers. This Google News listed story says 1/3 of software sales are made online. Steam accounts for 3 million gamers monthly. There's a bit of obviousness about this question. If you're the type of person that shops for games online, are you more likely a PC gamer or a console gamer? Personally, I've never considered buying console games online. And I haven't bought a PC game in a store in over 5 years. Part of that is the poor selection and high prices in B&M stores. Steam takes that a step further and lets me play while it's downloading.

      Not to mention recently you have such time vacuums like World of Warcraft that have been drying up PC gaming dollars that might go elsewhere. I wouldn't exactly call that "drying up." WoW brings in a lot of casual gamers that wouldn't be interested in most other online PC games.
    13. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Xaivius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh for the love of god, people. Give it a rest. PC gaming isn't dead until finding new PC games is like trying to find new N-Gage games...

    14. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by kcornia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just off the top of my head:

      Bioshock
      World in Conflict
      Medal of Honor: Airborne
      Civ 4: Beyond the Sword
      Supreme Commander
      Crysis
      DiRT
      HL2: Orange Box
      Call of Duty 4

      I could go on and on, and the holiday season hasn't even hit yet. You could argue a couple of those are console ports, but the vast majority wouldn't even begin to work on a console.

      PC Gaming dying? Uh no.

    15. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but you know, when I go into a store now, there's only like six games for the PC too. Everything is for consoles now days. Gaming on the PC seems to be dying. :( Do you code? Do you draw pixel art? Do you write music? If so, you can help fix this. Reply if you're interested.
    16. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by ymgve · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even though there are 3 million accounts om Steam, that does not mean there have been 3 million software sales online, because even when you buy a Valve game in a retail store, you still have to create a Steam account to be able to play. Not to mention that you can create a Steam account without any games, so there are probably a lot of empty accounts there too.

    17. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 1
    18. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by weave · · Score: 1

      Hahaha, you scored a direct hit on that. I *was* thinking about Gamestop/EB/whatever when I wrote that!

    19. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      1) Consoles are "teh" better for gaming than PCs!


      Overall, they are. Better as in a larger variety of games, better as in less kludgy, better as in easier to use. And sooner or later, even the RTS, Turn based strategy and flight sims are going to end up there. It's only a matter of time.

    20. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by CronoCloud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So of the four platforms, the PC is on top. How, then, is PC gaming dying if it's the leading platform?


      Because on the PC a game selling 50000 copies can be considered a hit, on the console that would be considered a failure. See in the PC world you have the big hits like HL, Sims, WoWetc, and then you have lots of lttle sellers. There isn't a strong "middle class" of sales.

      The console world does have a "middle class" of sales

      So a game that sells 50000 copies of it's PC version and 500000 of it's console version is probably going to get a sequel, but it will be console only, a la the Summoner series for the PS2.

    21. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by aichpvee · · Score: 0, Troll

      No one benefits from the "innovation" of microsoft lock-in. So no, we don't all benefit.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    22. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Because on the PC a game selling 50000 copies can be considered a hit

      Since when. Daikatana was one of the biggest flops of all time and it sold 200,000 copies according to this site.

    23. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by saintm · · Score: 1

      > but the vast majority wouldn't even begin to work on a console.
      Actually, the majority are already on consoles.

      On console already:
      Bioshock
      DiRT
      HL2: Orange Box
      Call of Duty 4
      Medal of Honor: Airborne

      PC Only:
      World in Conflict
      Civ 4: Beyond the Sword
      Supreme Commander
      Crysis

      Even the PC only ones have no real reason why they could not be adapted.

      Face facts, PC gaming is in steady decline.

    24. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Bri3D · · Score: 1

      No it's not; look at the sales of the games which were released across multiple consoles and PC and I bet the PC sold higher. PC is still leading, deal with it. Though I'm really not sure what the grandparent was trying to say as he basically listed console games and then said "look, PC is better." Civ IV is a great example though, it's a high-selling, fun game which could never be adapted well to console; it uses a mouse (for examples on why porting this is a BAD idea see Starcraft 64). Crysis might take to much power to run on a console (that's what they've been saying) but I honestly think that's BS; they just don't want to port it. Anyway, though, I can just apply your argument in reverse and say there's no reason why Halo 3 couldn't have been released for PC right now. But does that mean console gaming is dying? I think not.

    25. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Gamestop bought EB within the last year sometime (fuzzy on when, as I don't care;)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    26. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Goto BestBuy or Fry's. Like the Wii has a quarter of an aisle of games, PS2 has one aisle, PS3 an endcap, Xbox about half an aisle. In fact, PS2, Wii, Gamecube, Xbox, XBox 360, and PS3 are on the same aisle, then you have half of the next aisle dedicated to Nintendo Handhelds. Then go over to the PC gaming aisles, and look at the 4-5 aisles of PC games. Seems to be true at BOTH BestBuy and Fry's. So, yeah, stay out of Gamestop unless you are trying to pick up Final Fantasy 7 for the PSX or something.

    27. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      It "can" but it depends on the genre of the game.

    28. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by TeamSPAM · · Score: 1

      As far as to replacing individual parts in an Apple? I'll respond to this as I lean towards the first group. Even with my old G4 desktop, it is using standard parts for just about everything except the CPU. In general, you are limited in your upgrading. HD, RAM, and optical drives are your general upgrade options that will be cheaper than buying from Apple or extending the life of your mac. It is possible to upgrade the video card, but you're really limited on your selection as the video card needs to be supported under OS X. While macs use standard card interfaces, it isn't that easy to find a card that will be supported.
      --
      Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    29. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goto considered harmful.

    30. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World In Conflict is coming out for the Xbox 360 as well.

    31. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This interview perfectly explains why I don't make a switch to a Mac

    32. Re:Hey! They got games for Mac too... by compulsiveguile · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, I'd never seen those videos before. I like that Photoshop quote. Thanks for sharing!

      --
      Greg Loesch
      http://greg.loeschfam.com
  2. The first important thing was: by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Get a mouse with two buttons. (granted, the new mouse emulates a right mouse click finally)

    1. Re:The first important thing was: by edittard · · Score: 3, Funny

      the new mouse emulates a right mouse click finally
      Let me guess, you have to do left alt-right shift-both pedals-headshake?
      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    2. Re:The first important thing was: by stubear · · Score: 1

      But it does so poorly. I often think I'm left-clicking only to have a right-click contextual menu pop-up and annoy the hell out me. I hate the thought of having to purchase a mouse for my system at work (they won't) when Apple should just get over their obsession of eliminating buttons together and offer a true two button mouse.

    3. Re:The first important thing was: by Mattintosh · · Score: 4, Informative

      The new mouse does not "emulate" a right-click. It sends a Button2 (sometimes called "Joy2", for joystick buttons) signal. Ctrl-click (Ctrl-Button1) emulates a Button2 signal in the OS.

    4. Re:The first important thing was: by Thyamine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any mouse you want to use, you can. My MacBook Pro didn't come with a mouse, so I went and bought a nice Logitech. Both mouse buttons work fine. Gamers usually have a nicer mouse than the standard Dell/HP/Microsoft mouse that comes with their system anyways. Why should a Mac be different? Don't gripe, go buy a nice mouse.

      --
      I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    5. Re:The first important thing was: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the clarification. :)

    6. Re:The first important thing was: by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that it does a poor job at having a second button. There should not be a finger anywhere near the Button1 or else the click is treated as Button1 even if the pressure is in the Button2 area. This is due to the fact that they use capacitive proximity sensing rather than pressure sensing. The entire mouse basically has one microswitch.

    7. Re:The first important thing was: by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is that it does a poor job at having a second button. There should not be a finger anywhere near the Button1 or else the click is treated as Button1 even if the pressure is in the Button2 area. This is due to the fact that they use capacitive proximity sensing rather than pressure sensing. The entire mouse basically has one microswitch.

      This is a problem with Apple's mouse, not with the OS, since the OS can use any old logitech mouse quite happily. This is what I do.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    8. Re:The first important thing was: by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      That is true, I use third party mice all the time. One of them is the one with a cheap Wacom tablet.

    9. Re:The first important thing was: by theantipop · · Score: 1

      This is true, I use a Logitech mx510 on my Macbook, but you have to install third party software to make it useful for most involved tasks.

    10. Re:The first important thing was: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of big words, but that alone doesn't mean you're right (happy for you that you got Slashdot's approval though, FWIW). The Mighty Mouse behavior is by design and logic, not due to hardware limitations. If the Mighty Mouse can't figure out where your fingers are, then why doesn't everything register as a right click instead? Mac users used to using the whole mouse to click (or who aren't concerned about right-clicking at all) then get the behavior they expect without having to fiddle with the settings. Not that I'm a representative sample, but it was an adjustment that took me all of 1 day to make (including in gaming) and I'm quite happy with it so it is possible to work out and maybe even that this is what people want.

    11. Re:The first important thing was: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy any friggin' mouse you want and plug it in... it will just work!

  3. What Apple needs by downix · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Macs are good machines, but they are not gaming machines by any stretch of the imagination. Then again, gaming on Windows or Linux is a kludge as well. I haven't seen a home computer optimized for gaming since the old Amiga. Frankly, all of these guys focus on their bread and butter, and if they can "happen" to get games to run, good.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:What Apple needs by quanticle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I haven't seen a home computer optimized for gaming since the old Amiga.

      What about the original XBox? That was basically the same architecture as a PC, but optimized for games.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    2. Re:What Apple needs by geeknado · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Maybe, but one important distinction here is that that "kludge" is a priority of Microsoft's(and of some elements of the Linux community as well). Microsoft views games as a key part of their consumer-adoption strategy and are constantly working with the community to improve the development experience-- see XNA, as an example of something they've done that's pretty interesting.

      By contrast, the company that 'gets it' about everything else doesn't seem to see any worth in trying to make their platform more game developer friendly...It's always been an afterthought, and that's strange if you think about it. Here's a company that's winning sales by making the use of their platform more fun/enjoyable than their competitors, yet somehow, they always ignore games? It's almost like they think that magically game devs will target their platform/solve the problems for them, which I suppose is possible if they get enough market share, but seriously-- how many more Macs would sell if gaming on a Mac was really something you could do? It boggles the mind.

    3. Re:What Apple needs by happyemoticon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The main obstacle to gaming on the Windows platform is Windows - that is, the amount of memory the operating system soaks up just for being around. There, however, you can just slap on some more memory and you're good to go.

      But with Macs, I understand that from a game programmer's perspective, the graphics APIs just aren't as good as DirectX. Can't fix that with a few RAM sticks. I've got my Mac computer dual-booting, so I'd know! Also, they don't sell a box that is really in that "gamer" niche. The top-end iMacs are still a bit too slow to be good gaming machines, and your options for aftermarket upgrades are limited; the pro systems are absurdly expensive and shove more cores down your throat than you really need unless you're doing video editing.

    4. Re:What Apple needs by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen a home computer optimized for gaming sinced the old Amiga. That might offend the folks over at Alienware...
      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    5. Re:What Apple needs by nuzak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Still not a home computer.

      But the GP is talking nonsense. Shell out five grand for a XPS or Blackbird and you're buying a gaming PC, full stop. The Amiga was no more "optimized for games" than a Mac (to get back on topic)

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    6. Re:What Apple needs by downix · · Score: 0

      Then you've never run an Amiga.

      Pop in a disk, viola, it's a game console. Pop in a different one, it's a desktop computer. Some swapping, it's both at once.

      --
      Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    7. Re:What Apple needs by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      Insightful for stating that gaming on Windows is a kludge and that there have been no PC's for gaming since the Amiga?

      Really? On /.?

      Hmm, I guess the 4 or 5 gaming rigs I've had in the past decade didn't really exist then. All of which smoked any console gaming system of the time by far...nevermind. Why am I responding to blatant flamebait anyways...oh yeah, +4 insightful.

      Sheesh, someone fix that please!

      --
      No Comment.
    8. Re:What Apple needs by archen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It boggles the mind.

      Does it? If one thing Apple works hard for, it's a good user experience. They charge more for hardware of moderate performance. They WANT customer loyalty.

      Gamers by contrast love to upgrade video cards and screw with bios settings. Gamers also have NO loyalty. They'll drop anyone to go to a next big thing in performance and gaming. The PC world there are plenty of vendors competing in all spaces. Who is Apple going to compete against? Apple? The entire chasing gamers trail of thought is basically in the same vein as "why doesn't Apple make their OS for all PCs".

      If apple should be concerned with anything right now it would be having the biggest PC game available on a Mac. Last I checked World of Warcraft worked just fine, so I don't think they're too worried.

    9. Re:What Apple needs by quanticle · · Score: 1

      The XBox could have been the same, save for Microsoft's shortsightedness. It was a fairly powerful PC with DVD support and a hard drive. As the Linux on XBox project shows, its a platform capable of far more than gaming.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    10. Re:What Apple needs by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I'm speccing out a machine for a friend. He doesn't want to do any upgrades (scared of computers), and doesn't want to spend more than $1500. He's eligible for an Apple education discount.

      Can you find a machine compentant at gaming for the same price as the $1399.99 iMac? (this it the $1499.99 model, with educational pricing).

      It's got a Radeon HD2600 Pro as default, so I won't accept anything less than that. I know that's not a great video card, but its a heck of a lot better (2x as fast) as a Geforce 8500, and that's the best I can find at any of the other large PC companies in that price range.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    11. Re:What Apple needs by geeknado · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, it does.

      You could make a very strong case that the Mac could be an ideal gaming platform since they utilize a limited number of configurations-- it's a closer analog to a console than to a Windows PC that way. /That's/ why it boggles the mind.

      There're different kinds of gamers, and those that hack around with their boxes/upgrade the hardware themselves are not the only ones that drive the gaming market. Given that 'l33t rig' warehouses seem to be doing fine, it seems clear that there're even hardcore gamers that buy their config pre-tweaked.

      Yes, WOW works just fine on the Mac(and under Linux), and that's /not/ because Apple has in any way facilitated its development. Rather, Blizzard recognizes that volume is king when you're talking about an MMO, so they've worked hard to support as many available platforms as possible. Good for them.

      "But it doesn't play games" is the typical argument against purchasing a Mac/using OSX. Sure, you can use Boot Camp and dual boot, but in that case you're buying a Windows license /and/ installing your own operating system, putting this outside of the comfort zone for many potential users. Your average end user is not going to want to mess with a boot loader, period.

    12. Re:What Apple needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Easily, if you lurk around on sites like slickdeals.net or fatwallet for long enough. For example, this Dell will blow any imac out of the water once you add in a $280 8800GTS http://www.slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=584681&highlight=dell, for much less money than any mac.

    13. Re:What Apple needs by nuzak · · Score: 1

      I owned an Amiga. And a C64 before that. And even, *shudder* a VIC-20 before that. Booting off the game media still doesn't make it "optimized for games", and it's simply not realistic these days except when the hardware is completely standardized -- which is what consoles are all about.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    14. Re:What Apple needs by nuzak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Microsoft is in no way being short-sighted by locking down the XBox. Game licenses are what make them money, XBMC and homebrew doesn't. You may not agree with their decision, but it doesn't make them stupid for it.

      It'd be nice if they let people freely mod the things once it was fully EOL'd in a few years, but that isn't really germane to the product strategy.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    15. Re:What Apple needs by east+coast · · Score: 1

      The main obstacle to gaming on the Windows platform is Windows - that is, the amount of memory the operating system soaks up just for being around. There, however, you can just slap on some more memory and you're good to go.

      Maybe if Joe Sixpack wasn't buying the Best Buy 499.95 special and expecting it to play the latest games...

      For the most part the only time I hear complaints out of Windows gamers is the ones that don't have enough cash to buy their own gear and have to live off of mommy and daddy's hand me downs.

      Bitch about the memory and pat yourself on the back all you want but when is the last time a gig of ram cost more then the latest PS3 title? In perspective the issue of buying an off-the-shelf PC to play games on and adding the ram yourself is normally going to cost you less then the sales tax on most new machines.

      And this isn't to defend Windows because I know where you're coming from but it's time that we need to step back and finally tell the low end gamers who want to step up that they're going to have to spend a little money to do it. I have a three year old PC that I got an extra stick of ram for that plays HL2 and it's assorted goodies just fine. I have a year old laptop that I can say the same thing about.

      All in all it amazes me the number of people who customize their PC off of Dell or HP and skimp on the memory only to have it bite them in the ass when they install games on it.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    16. Re:What Apple needs by happyemoticon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      For the most part the only time I hear complaints out of Windows gamers is the ones that don't have enough cash to buy their own gear and have to live off of mommy and daddy's hand me downs.

      Bitch about the memory and pat yourself on the back all you want but when is the last time a gig of ram cost more then the latest PS3 title? In perspective the issue of buying an off-the-shelf PC to play games on and adding the ram yourself is normally going to cost you less then the sales tax on most new machines.

      It sounds like you just took my statement, added some pepper, and threw it back at me like it was a counter-argument.

    17. Re:What Apple needs by GoatEnigma · · Score: 1

      http://pc.ncix.com/pcbuilder/index.php?action=config&id=2643518&platformid=1000 That's with a 19" widescreen Samsung LCD. And keyboard/mouse and all the junk. But it is in CDN, so I guess it's slightly more than $1391. Mac != games, and any rig you can come up with on a Mac you can build cheaper as a PC, and until Apple licenses their stuff to third parties like they did with the PowerPC's in the mid '90's, that will never change.

    18. Re:What Apple needs by east+coast · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you just took my statement, added some pepper, and threw it back at me like it was a counter-argument.

      I guess that's true if you see every reply to your post as an argument.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    19. Re:What Apple needs by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gamers also have NO loyalty.
      Eh? Where have you been during all of the PS/XBox/Wii/Cube/PSP/DS/Cedega SUX Wine is good enough/ flame wars? And besides, look at all the consoles I just mentioned, no bios to tweak, no video card to swap out. The group you reference are the ultra hardcore types. For every copy of Bioshock sold there were four copies of Sims 1/2. This isn't current but if start to add the tweakers up, they aren't that big a bunch. All would take is a little initiative on Apples part and they could watch thier sales climb as the casual game crowd can get thier games working under Mac.

      Sera
      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    20. Re:What Apple needs by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      You're right.. if gamers can't see how great Macs are fuck them.. they can play WoW after all.. what more can they ask for..

      I think this is a great stance for apple to take.. "if you can't do what you love on a mac, fuck you we don't care for your business".

      If a "gamer" can't show blind loyalty like yours to a platform then why try to develop for them.. they obviously have their priorities backwards.

    21. Re:What Apple needs by tepples · · Score: 1

      Maybe if Joe Sixpack wasn't buying the Best Buy 499.95 special and expecting it to play the latest games What about a 360 for $360? Why does that play the latest games when a comparably priced PC can't?
    22. Re:What Apple needs by Nevyn · · Score: 1

      BS. The Amiga was "optimized for games" in the same way my Wii/PS2/whatever is ... it was a fixed HW spec. Games "just worked" on the Amiga, this has never been the case with the win32/PC and at this point I doubt it never will be. DirectX brought it out of the complete disaster area it was previous to that, but MS are well aware that their biggest problem is 3rd party drivers for video ... and Linux is going to fix this problem before they are.

      Amusingly Apple would have the best chance of doing this well, if they cared.

      --
      ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
    23. Re:What Apple needs by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The C64 was designed for games. What other reason is there for it to support sprites in hardware and use a pretty advanced sound chip? AFAIK it was designed as a console but because consoles were in a slump they outfitted it with some basic computer features and pushed it as a PC instead.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    24. Re:What Apple needs by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The Sims works on the Mac. A lot of the more casual games, at least the big hits, seem to get ported.

    25. Re:What Apple needs by east+coast · · Score: 1

      What about a 360 for $360? Why does that play the latest games when a comparably priced PC can't?

      Could it be subsidies? Come on now, this has been the topic of many Slashdot stories. Why is it that people are glad to point this out when it's a bash against MS but so soon to forget it when the low price of a 360 works in their favor? If you didn't know that MS was taking a big loss on every 360 I'm sorry to slam you in this fashion but if you knew about it you shouldn't be asking these kinds of questions.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    26. Re:What Apple needs by Chode2235 · · Score: 1

      One would also think that since the mac is relatively stable as a platform (much more limited in the number of options and configurations than exist in the 'PC' world) that it could be a great "tweener" option. It lies between the no fuss of consoles, and the scalability of PC gaming. It seems that game developers could more easily control the user experience, much in the same way Apple does, on the mac vs. the PC.

    27. Re:What Apple needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, let's see.. Dedicated video, sound and I/O processing chips, completely hackable, documented, made from the get go to scroll smoother in 2D than most PCs can do even today (remember, this was the '80s, there wasn't really 3D yet so planar video was a good idea).. tons of sprites, dedicated graphics coprocessor.. No, no gaming optimization there.

      The Amiga was ORIGINALLY CONCIEVED as a GAME CONSOLE, then became a full fledged computer. Not the other way around. There has never been a complete home computer platform (NOT console), before or since, made from the start to be as 'optimized for gaming' as the Amiga was.

  4. Agreed by hirschma · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, better gaming availability and I'd be running to buy a Mac. Like, tomorrow.

    Of course, the same could be said for Linux. If the "bigs" showed up on Linux, I'd be dumping my Windows desktop, too.

    Bottom line: first non-Windows OS with decent, supported, modern gaming and I'm off to the races.

    I have a feeling that Shuttleworth isn't as silly as the Mac folks on this issue, wouldn't be surprised if he's had the same meeting, too.

    1. Re:Agreed by realmolo · · Score: 1

      "Bottom line: first non-Windows OS with decent, supported, modern gaming and I'm off to the races."

      Don't hold your breath. There are multiple issues that will keep most games from every being made for the Mac or Linux:

      1. DirectX/Direct3D is a really nice API for making games. And MS supports it with nice development tools.

      2. The market for Mac and Linux games is incredibly tiny, and it's just not worth creating new versions (meaning, using an API other than DirectX) of a game for those platforms.

      3. Most importantly, even the market for *Windows* games is shrinking rapidly. Essentially all of the major developers are moving to the consoles, which is where the real money is. There is growth in the simple "Flash/Shockwave/Java" games that everyone plays online, but those are already cross-platform, and they are mostly advertising-supported.

    2. Re:Agreed by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Bottom line: first non-Windows OS with decent, supported, modern gaming and I'm off to the races.

      Let me correct that:

      Bottom line: first non-Windows OS that doesn't suck with decent, supported, modern gaming and I'm off to the races.

      I mean, if it's not windows, rocks at gaming but sucks for everything else, it isn't going to gain mainstream either.

    3. Re:Agreed by tixxit · · Score: 1

      I mean, if it's not windows, rocks at gaming but sucks for everything else, it isn't going to gain mainstream either.

      Tell that to Sony or Nintendo ;) Computers are cheap enough that you don't NEED a one-system-does-all approach. In fact, it is probably more expensive to buy 1 good gaming computer, then it is to buy a console for gaming and a cheap computer for everything else. Look at how many computers your techy 20-something may have. A game console (or 2 or 3), a laptop, a router for networking, a hand held or smart phone to maintain personal org. info, an MP3 player for music, PVR for recording shows, etc.. Lets face it, the idea of a computer that does everything under the sun is losing its appeal, since computers that specialize seem to do it far better and far cheaper.
    4. Re:Agreed by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "3. Most importantly, even the market for *Windows* games is shrinking rapidly. Essentially all of the major developers are moving to the consoles, which is where the real money is. There is growth in the simple "Flash/Shockwave/Java" games that everyone plays online, but those are already cross-platform, and they are mostly advertising-supported."

      I see this fallacy spouted a lot, typically by console fanbois.. have anything to back this specious argument up?

      Last time i checked the PC had 3 row dedicated to PC gaming, each console has a 3rd of a section for the same thing.. and most of the games are repeats for each console...

      Not to mention the growing wealth of Steam type delivery mechanisms...

    5. Re:Agreed by tepples · · Score: 1

      In fact, it is probably more expensive to buy 1 good gaming computer, then it is to buy a console for gaming and a cheap computer for everything else. But will the cheap console+cheap computer play independent games? Wii doesn't have official homebrew methods, and the subscription to run homebrew on Xbox 360 costs $99 per year.
    6. Re:Agreed by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      DirectX/Direct3D is a really nice API for making games. And MS supports it with nice development tools.

      I'm a games programmer, so I have to ask. How is DirectX/Direct3D better than SDL/OpenGL?

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    7. Re:Agreed by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree.... However, you're talking consoles and technically they're not computers in the accepted term of the word. I don't even do PC gaming anymore. For me, a computer must still be fully programmable to the end user. What you list, are appliances. Sure, real computers might disappear in the future, but not for us CS guys....

  5. I run games on my MacBook Pro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Under VMWare and/or Boot Camp. Peggle (Extreme) works well in VMWare.

    1. Re:I run games on my MacBook Pro by viniosity · · Score: 1

      And actually VM Ware 1.1 beta currently has experimental support for DirectX 9. That doesn't mean that all games will work, but it's another reason why native mac gaming may be slow(er) to take off.

    2. Re:I run games on my MacBook Pro by LameAssTheMity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ....So what you're saying is.... "I use Windows to run games on my Mac"

  6. The Text: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for giving ad revenue to sites with intersting articles, but this site is particularly annoying. Narrow text. Tons of ads. A forced flash ad between every (artifically) short article page, and no "print" view. So, without further adeau, the full text:

    Gabe Newell Valve Interview - Orange Box

    We sit down for a lengthy discussion with Valve Corp's MD and co-founder, Gabe Newell, ahead of the release of The Orange Box for PC and console.

    By Adam Doree

    Our previous interview with Valve's Doug Lomrabdi focussed mostly on Half-Life 2 and its new episodes, like Episode Two, included in the awesome Orange Box next month.

    This time, we sat down with Valve boss Gabe Newell (with some additional input from Doug as well as graphics architect Jason Mitchell) for the definitive interview on everything in The Orange Box, where Valve is at, why there's no Mac love, and what's coming next.

    Kikizo: Let's start with Steam. Some have levelled it as a criticism that you can't sell something after you have purchased it like you can with a typical boxed game. From a commercial point of view - if you want it, you've got to buy it new - how significant an effect does this have on your revenue?

    Gabe Newell: I think we always try to provide great value to customers. You know, I think everybody who bought, Counter-Strike has received all of the updates and free content for that, or people who buy Orange Box will get five games in a box, will say that they got value, and that's what we try to focus on.

    Kikizo: People keep asking you about a potential Macintosh version, and your stance is that this is a strictly Windows project...?

    Gabe: Well, we tried to have a conversation with Apple for several years, and they never seemed to... well, we have this pattern with Apple, where we meet with them, people there go "wow, gaming is incredibly important, we should do something with gaming". And then we'll say, "OK, here are three things you could do to make that better", and then they say OK, and then we never see them again. And then a year later, a new group of people show up, who apparently have no idea that the last group of people were there, and never follow though on anything. So, they seem to think that they want to do gaming, but there's never any follow through on any of the things they say they're going to do. That makes it hard to be excited about doing games for their platforms.

    Kikizo: So you think it's all because of staff turnaround in their gaming department?

    Gabe: I just don't think they've ever taken gaming seriously. And none of the things developers ask them to do are done. And as a result, there's no gaming market there to speak of. We'd love it if they would get serious about it. But they never have, and can't even follow trough on any of their commitments for game developers.

    Kikizo: So would you say that the rumour that crops up every couple of years that Apple is about to do a big plan and release a console box, is basically bullshit?

    Gabe: We've seen no evidence that they are able to follow through on even simple programs in the game space. It seems bizarre to me because it's like one of the biggest things holding them back in the consumer space. If you look at a Macintosh right now, it does a lot of things really well compared to a Vista PC, but there are no games. Why, I don't know. If I were a Macintosh product manager, it would be pretty high on my list, and a problem to get taken care of, as probably the number one thing holding them back with consumers.

    Kikizo: Well that clears up the Mac issue. Now, you guys have always been improving your lobby systems, let's talk about Half-Life 2 in particular, I have to be honest I only recently delved into the online multiplayer aspects of Half-Life 2, what would you say as a new player going into the MP side of HL2 is the best thing to do, because I fired up the lobby and there's all these different things you can do, and most of them look like user-created leve

  7. Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Apple needs better hardware for gameing the mac pro with 1gb of FB-DIMM ram and only a 7300 gt in the base system for $2200 is too costly and $250 more to upgrade to a X1900 XT is ripoff.

    The I macs have weak video cards and the only way to get a faster cpu is to get a bigger screen that puts even more load on the GPU.

    The mini is over priced and under powered.

    1. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Mini under powered? Maybe when it had a core Solo, but not that it comes standard with a Core 2 Duo and a gig of RAM I don't think the mini is underpowered at all (unless you mean only the GPU, in which case you are correct). I will give you that it is at least $100 overpriced, IMHO anyways.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    2. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that the previous gen iMac had an optional card that actually significantly outperforms the current generation of iMacs by a significant amount when it comes to gaming. I just don't get Apple's strategy here. On one hand you make a huge deal at the WWDC about game development(including having CEOs of 2 big gaming companies come to speak), but then the first computer you release post WWDC is actually SLOWER at playing games than the model it replaced! Not to mention you are right about the mac pros, paying top dollar for video cards that are going on 2 years old is insane. The macbook pro video card isn't too bad as far as laptop video cards go, but the macbook pro isn't cheap either.

      Maybe Steve is brooding in his ivory tower in Cupertino over some master plan for the mac that will make our tiny heads spin, but otherwise I just don't get what Apple is trying to do here.

    3. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      Apple needs better hardware for gameing the mac pro with 1gb of FB-DIMM ram and only a 7300 gt in the base system for $2200 is too costly and $250 more to upgrade to a X1900 XT is ripoff.

      People need to be more specific - its not that the Mac is unsuitable for games, its unsuitable for high-performance 3D games - mostly first-person shooters - used by people who would get beaten up at LAN parties if their rig couldn't pull 60fps at 1800x1200 in the latest game with all the quality options set to 11 - and I'd have thought that even in the PC world that is in danger of becoming a niche market, pwned by cheap gaming-grade PC hardware. Apple would find it very hard to break in to that niche, which will always demand this week's latest software and graphics hardware (oh, and hideously tasteless neon-encrusted cases that would force Johnathan Ive pluck his eyes out in disgust).

      ...and as for consoles, I suspect that the typical non-/.er Mac user is more likely to go for a Wii than an PS3.

      As for the Mac Pro, I agree that the X1900 option needs "updating", but really the Mac Pro is not intended to be a FPS gaming machine - its a "serious computing" workstation using expensive workstation/server processor & memory technologies. The 7300 is more than adequate for non-3D work (and the occasional bout of Unreal) and the card is passively cooled so its quiet and you can fit 4 of them (for multiple displays, not SLI) if you feel inclined. I assume that the other, really pricey, nvidia cards they offer have some attractions to serious graphics users but they obviously ain't gaming cards and not many people would buy a Mac Pro for FPS gaming.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    4. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      As for the base video card in the mac pro you should get a dual dual-link dvi with 256 or more of video ram video card for $150 as that is the price that you are paying for the card and apple needs to up it to something better as the 7300 is out of date any ways a 8500 / 8600 is a better base card.

    5. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "used by people who would get beaten up at LAN parties if their rig couldn't pull 60fps at 1800x1200 in the latest game with all the quality options set to 11"

      Most of the pro players set the graphics down as far as possible to see their opponents easier.

      modern mac hardware is fine for most games, and they could sell higher end systems for those who wanted more eye candy, it's not like mac users are known for paying less for systems.

      I have a few friends who use macs, they play WoW extensively and would love to play other games but can't.. in fact some of them have windows boxes just so they can play online games with us.. like CS or battlefield..

    6. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      As for the base video card in the mac pro you should get a dual dual-link dvi with 256 or more of video ram video card

      No, what should happen is that graphics card manufacturers should be offering a range Mac compatible cards for sensible prices and only people with more money than sense should have to buy them through Apple (just like RAM and hard drives). I have no idea whether Apple is obstructing this or if its the card manufacturers who "prefer not to". If it really does just need EFI compatible ROMs then we can blame Microsoft for dropping EFI support from Vista.

      However, the Mac Pro is due for a refesh, anyway (we can but hope that this brings some new graphics card options).

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    7. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      We also need a mid-range mac with desktop parts and pci-e slots.

      How hard is for Nvidia and ATI to write a common drive for mac os x that made them for the cards for the PPC systems.

    8. Re:Apple needs better hardware for gameing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the pro players set the graphics down as far as possible to see their opponents easier.

      Huh? I do not follow that logic at all. Lower resolution or graphics setting help you see your opponents better? Is there a limit to how low like 320x240 means you can see them really well or is there a sweet spot somewhere?

  8. touché by deftcoder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As far as I know, Apple hasn't had to leak the source code to one of their own projects to cover for it running waaaay over schedule.

    They have a 1-up on Valve in that regard.

    --
    Peace sells, but who's buying?
    1. Re:touché by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      can I have some tinfoil so I can heat up my lunch?

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
  9. Yep. No games. by CommandoCody · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Given that I've been able to run every Blizzard game since Warcraft II on my Mac, and that I've been able to run every Quake III- or Unreal Engine-based game that anyone bothered to port, the whole "Macs can't run games" argument is weak at best. Especially from Newell, who canceled a nearly-finished port of Half-Life I because he just didn't feel like supporting it.

    1. Re:Yep. No games. by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not about porting a game to Macs.. it's about Apple doing a few things that would make porting games much easier. It seems quite simple, if Apple wants to greatly increase market share, they will make their systems more gamer friendly.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    2. Re:Yep. No games. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're mis-representing his argument. He's not saying "Macs can run games," that's patently ridiculous, seeing as there's so many games on Mac. What he's saying is "Apple doesn't give game companies much support." What's the most Apple's ever done for game companies? They had "Sprockets" for OS 8 and 9, but they never took it seriously-- Bungie did most of the work on it, from my understanding, and Apple mostly just ignored it until by OS X it was completely obsolete.

      Apple's historically always been like this, though. Even classic games like Prince of Persia, Uninvited, or even Myst were done with no support or promotion whatsoever from Apple.

    3. Re:Yep. No games. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Bah, early morning typo. That first quote should read "Macs can't run games." One of those nasty typos where you type the opposite of what you mean.

    4. Re:Yep. No games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzard games are usually pitched towards the lowest common denominator as far as system requirements go. The graphics are decent, the gameplay is good, and the experience is usually pleasantly addictive, but I don't think many people considered Warcraft II a particularly hardware taxing game. I guess a mac is a good gaming platform if you're willing to wait until whichever game you want to play will run on the pedestrian hardware they're bundling into the latest version of whicher box you bought this year, but for the latest and greatest, vapid and visceral, eye-poppingly realistic FPS a decent playing experience on any apple machine you can afford is something out of the reach of mere mortals.

    5. Re:Yep. No games. by CommandoCody · · Score: 1

      That's my point. It's perfectly gamer-friendly. I've been gaming on it for decades.

      There may be no "l33t" ultimate-gamer machines from Apple, but I'm not sure how big that market is. Meanwhile, I bet Half-Life 2 would have played just fine on the latest iMacs if Valve had cared. Maybe not at the most uber of frame-rate and resolution, but if that's the only reason to play a gmae, it's not much of a game.

    6. Re:Yep. No games. by CommandoCody · · Score: 1

      What I was trying to say is that other companies (such as Cyan, as a mentioned example) seem to do extremely well without the support Newell was asking for. I can't help but notice that he's a bit vague about that support: one rumor is that he asked Apple to re-do their OpenGL implementation so it would work more like DirectX. Only a rumor, though.

    7. Re:Yep. No games. by clem · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what you're talking about. That never happens to me.

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    8. Re:Yep. No games. by clem · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry. Meant to say, "I know exactly what you're talking about. That always happens to me."

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    9. Re:Yep. No games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So thats what...5 more games?

      WOOOOOOOPIEEEEEE

    10. Re:Yep. No games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bungie did not do most of the work on Sprockets. There was a small gaming team. However when the next round of layoffs happened that team got reduced from six or so people down to one and that one was folded into the hardware group.

    11. Re:Yep. No games. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both Blizzard and Epic are very good about scaling their graphics for different hardware. My crappy old laptop can play WoW and UT2k but it has no chance of playing any other game written in the past 5 years. Game companies are spending enough development dollars just getting thier games to run well on the latest graphics hardware. The average developer will not be willing to spend the time and money to downscale their graphics engine to accomodate the mac audience. There is no way in the current market that they will get any return on that money. It is better spent else where on the project. Factor in that they have to convince their publisher to spend the money to release it for the mac and you can see why the mac has very little support. Epic only does it because they want to put 'supports mac' on their unreal engine license.

    12. Re:Yep. No games. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      He's not saying "Macs can run games,

      I assume you mean that he's not saying "Macs can't run games."

      But yes, he's not saying that. He's saying that Apple isn't helping game developers. Worse even, he's saying that Apple is openly soliciting game developers to spend time to give Apple information on how to help game developers, and then not acting on any of that information.

      I don't see any reason to disbelieve him. As an Apple customer, I hope that Apple changes this behavior and starts pursuing game developers more actively. I was running Windows on my Mac for a little while just to play Half Life 2.

    13. Re:Yep. No games. by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Apple isn't in the position to dictate formatting for games. I'm not an expert on game design or programming, but it seems to me there is something about Macs that make porting games them not worth the effort to most companies. Sure Blizzard releases their games for both platforms, they have the money and staff to do so. Some of the smaller companies probably can't support two staffs to create the game for PC and for Mac.

      Game companies are going to continue to develop for PC because that is where the majority of gamers are. Apple needs to make changes if they want to lure the gamers. It doesn't matter that 1 company releases their games for both platforms at the same time.. because for that 1 company there are 99 others who don't.

      The ball is in Apple's court. They make it easier to port games to their system or they will never be a serious player for gaming machines.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    14. Re:Yep. No games. by CommandoCody · · Score: 1

      Are you really suggesting that Apple should just make whatever random changes to their OS that any of those 99 game companies ask for? Changes that will still require someone to port the game to OS X, unless of course Apple abandons OS X and just makes Windows machines?

      The companies that have produced or paid for ports - companies such as Blizzard, id, Activision, EA, and others - obviously made money out of the deal, because they all came back and did it again.

      Apple's hardware and software runs the games. It's not impossible, and not impractical. If you make games, and don't want to write the port, don't blame it on Apple; stand up and admit "I didn't want to pay for the port." Don't whine about how hard Apple makes it when everyone else is managing, somehow.

    15. Re:Yep. No games. by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Warcraft 1 was on Mac OS as well. :)

    16. Re:Yep. No games. by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Gabe is talking out of his ass. Companies like Blizzard, Aspyr, Macplay, etc have all successfully worked with Apple to help make OS X's OpenGL implementation better and to ensure that the features they want make it into OS X releases. Their games run pretty well, too, especially WoW. So what are you doing wrong, Valve, hmmm? You're either screwing up diplomatically or asking far too much of Apple. And no games for Mac? Pull your head out, Gabe. Is this the same piece of shit that cancelled Halflife for Mac while it was in fucking BETA? I'm sure a third-party porting house would have LOVED to buy that from them, finish it, and then support it, but it never happened. My guess is that Valve wants Apple to make their job a little easier while making Apple's job a helluva lot harder.

    17. Re:Yep. No games. by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      The reason to disbelieve him is Blizzard and WoW. Blizzard has worked with Apple and did an excellent job of keeping WoW well-optimized and up to speed with OS X releases, and I guarantee you that they have provided valuable input and feedback for Apple on their OpenGL implementation. Other companies have done the same. So what is Valve doing wrong here?

    18. Re:Yep. No games. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I don't see why that indicates that Newell is lying. Apparently Blizzard had a good experience working with Apple and Valve didn't have a good experience. I still don't see a reason to disbelieve him.

    19. Re:Yep. No games. by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      Are you really suggesting that Apple should just make whatever random changes to their OS that any of those 99 game companies ask for? Changes that will still require someone to port the game to OS X, unless of course Apple abandons OS X and just makes Windows machines? If that was the case, I would agree with you. However, what's happening is:

      1) Apple send representatives to games companies asking how they can make porting easier.
      2) The games companies give them things they could do to make porting easier.
      3) Apple sit on those suggestions for a year and make no changes, then send a new group of people who are oblivious to the original suggestions and ask again.
      4) The games companies assume from their conduct and lack of contact that Apple don't give a rat's ass about assisting porting.

      Otherwise, and to a certain extent, you're right. The simple fact is that porting costs money, and not enough people use Mac as a gaming machine to make it worthwhile. If you're already sitting on a gajillion-dollar goldmine like the Sims or WoW, it may be worth the effort, but not by much. Apple could, however, be making it cheaper and easier but they won't and I don't claim to know why.
      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
    20. Re:Yep. No games. by anothy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2) The games companies give them things they could do to make porting easier.
      the primary problem here is that we have no idea what was asked for. if Valve told Apple "give us DirectX", it's no wonder they were ignored. same problem with your step 3. without know what was asked for, we have no way of knowing whether anything was done.

      4) The games companies assume from their conduct and lack of contact that Apple don't give a rat's ass about assisting porting.
      the problem here - and it's one Newell has as well - is that you're inappropriately generalizing from Valve's claims to the overall industry. the fact of the matter is that there's plenty of game shops that do nice fancy stuff on the Mac using whatever APIs they provide. sure, not nearly as many, but that's mostly a market/business decision. that's fine, but Newell's claim is that there's a technological issue that Apple doesn't care about addressing. and that's clearly not the case.

      Valve, like a bunch of other companies in a similar position most of a decade ago, had a choice to make and got into bed with Microsoft and DirectX. you can argue about the business or technical justification, but the effects are that those companies now have a much steeper road for porting, to the detriment of all (except Microsoft).

      until Newell puts forward some specific complaints with gaming development on the Mac, i'm afraid it simply sounds like he doesn't want to admit that they make money-based decisions around their games.
      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    21. Re:Yep. No games. by Macthorpe · · Score: 1

      the primary problem here is that we have no idea what was asked for. if Valve told Apple "give us DirectX", it's no wonder they were ignored. same problem with your step 3. without know what was asked for, we have no way of knowing whether anything was done. But Gabe, and I do trust him on this, said that the visitors actually agreed to give him what he wanted, and then that never turned up, which is a world of difference from "they disagreed and walked out".

      the problem here - and it's one Newell has as well - is that you're inappropriately generalizing from Valve's claims to the overall industry. the fact of the matter is that there's plenty of game shops that do nice fancy stuff on the Mac using whatever APIs they provide. As a proportion of the industry though, it's minimal.

      i'm afraid it simply sounds like he doesn't want to admit that they make money-based decisions around their games. Actually, if you read it with that assumption already in place, which I thought was how it was intended - we establish porting games costs money, but that Apple weren't going to try and make it any cheaper for them. In the end, sometimes it's just not worth the outlay. Again, when you're going to code to approximately 3% of the desktop market, and most of those users aren't known to be gamers, you have to make a decision. In that context, it seems relatively straightforward to me.
      --
      "It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
  10. Other points from the article: by ahoehn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the Slashdot summary focuses on the article's brief discussion of Mac gaming, the bread and butter of the article is about other things. I found this to be the most illuminating quote:

    So [Team Fortress 2] tends to accommodate a wider variety of play styles than say Counter-Strike. I mean Counter-Strike is very clear; there's not a lot of variety in that, whereas there's a huge difference between the tactical thinking that an engineer does managing resources versus say the approach that the sniper has playing in that game. So really it's much more accommodating to a wider range of play styles than any game out there.

    This is exactly why I haven't played CS for 2 or 3 years, but I've been playing TF2 every night this week. In CS, or Halo, or just about any other multiplayer first person shooter, if you're not good at shooting people in the head, you're not good at the game. But in TF2, there are so many ways to play the game that everyone's bound to be good at something once they find their niche. While I still suck at playing a soldier or sniper in TF2, I'll often find myself at the top of the list when I'm playing as a Medic or Engineer.

    The other unique thing about TF2 is the variety of cooperation that it requires. In Halo and CS, sticking together is just about the only required teamwork. In TF2 the level of class specialization demands an incredibly diverse range of cooperation. Switching the balance of power is often as easy (or hard) as finding a combination of classes that can defeat whatever strategy happens to be working for the enemy.

    In some ways, the cooperation in TF2 reminds me more of World of Warcraft than any other First Person Shooter.

    --
    Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    1. Re:Other points from the article: by antic · · Score: 1

      "In Halo ... , sticking together is just about the only required teamwork."

      Yeah, nothing to do with control of the map and power weapons. ;)

      Rest of your points are well made, however.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    2. Re:Other points from the article: by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You're right, but what makes TF2 different than, say, Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or the Battlefield series of games? Those all had class-based play, also... and it doesn't look like TF2 is offering anything new here.

    3. Re:Other points from the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, besides the fact that TF preceded those games by many years (they were the ones offering nothing new), the main difference is that there are very dramatic differences between the classes in the TF games, compared the minor differences you see in the ones you mention. CW and the Battefield games still result in the spoils going to the players with the best gun control, regardless of what class you play.

    4. Re:Other points from the article: by WillAtMH · · Score: 1

      Low cost of entry is what makes TF2 great. Very accessible yet it doesn't gimp vet players.

    5. Re:Other points from the article: by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 1

      You're right, but what makes TF2 different than, say, Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory or the Battlefield series of games? Those all had class-based play, also... and it doesn't look like TF2 is offering anything new here. TF2 isn't really offering anything new here. What it is offering is possibly the most polished, well-balanced, and thoroughly enjoyable example of the genre. It's similar to Blizzard's strategy with WoW: people have bitched non-stop that WoW isn't innovative, but the game is so successful because it dropped most of the annoying crap and polished the remainder to a high shine. TF2 does precisely the same thing for team-based shooters. I've been playing shooters since Wolfenstein 3D and I'm a huge fan of Enemy Territory. Take it from me: if you like team-based shooters and haven't played the TF2 beta, you're missing out in a big way. TF2 is worth the price of the Orange Box alone.

      cheers.
      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Other points from the article: by Das+Modell · · Score: 0, Troll

      Take it from me: if you like team-based shooters and haven't played the TF2 beta, you're missing out in a big way.

      I lost all interest the second I watched a gameplay vid where the losing team becomes unable to attack before the next round starts, allowing the winning team to frag them without resistance. DoD did the same thing, and it's one of the reasons why I don't play it anymore. I'll maybe try TF2 when Valve stops annoying the player for shits and giggles. TF2 could have been a good game but this is more than enough to convince me that Fortress Forever is the way to go.
    7. Re:Other points from the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're such a noob. It's hilarious that you lose so much that this has become a serious issue for you.

    8. Re:Other points from the article: by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with losing. I don't care if my team loses (which is not the same thing as not trying to win) and I don't play with the goal of being #1 on the scoreboards. I'm not a noob either, considering that I've played TF since 1997.

      Every single single reply I've received has been a completely ludicrous strawman with no connection to what I'm actually talking about.

    9. Re:Other points from the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lose more nub.

    10. Re:Other points from the article: by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      If you had read what I wrote, you would have noticed the part where I said I don't care about losing, and the part where I pointed out that I've played Team Fortress for a decade.

    11. Re:Other points from the article: by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      I lost all interest the second I watched a gameplay vid where the losing team becomes unable to attack before the next round starts, allowing the winning team to frag them without resistance.

      You lost all interest in a game because they give the winners 10 seconds to have some fun before the next round starts? This is the equivilant of not wanting to drive a race car because they allow the winner of the race a victory lap. It doesn't ruin the game. All it is is a special moment/reward for the victors. Besides, if you hate dieing that much you can always try to run and hide. I actually had fun as the loser when I just dodged rockets a soldier was shooting at me... then taunting him (using the rather funny in-game taunt animation, not smack talk). He switched to shotgun and finished me off, but we both got a good laugh out of it.

    12. Re:Other points from the article: by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 1

      I lost all interest the second I watched a gameplay vid where the losing team becomes unable to attack before the next round starts, allowing the winning team to frag them without resistance. DoD did the same thing, and it's one of the reasons why I don't play it anymore. I'll maybe try TF2 when Valve stops annoying the player for shits and giggles. TF2 could have been a good game but this is more than enough to convince me that Fortress Forever is the way to go. Fair enough, although I'm curious as to why this bothers you so much. If, as you state, you don't care about losing, then why is it such a game-killer? I suppose one could view it as Valve deliberately being juvenile, but in all fairness the free-frags fit quite well into the sense of humour that permeates the game. I was roaring with laughter the other evening as the last surviving member of my team during free-frag (we lost, obviously) was a scout, squeaking "don't kill me! don't kill me!" over voice-chat as the entire winning team chased him around the map. I would certainly encourage you to try to get past your annoyance with the feature, however, as you're missing out on some absolutely fantastic game-play. TF2 is a superb title and it's a shame that one thing is enough for you to decline to play it.

      Speaking generally, I think the key to enjoying TF2 is to really approach it with a sense of humour at the ready. People who are super competitive--and I have no doubt servers will be full of them on release--really miss a lot of the flavour of the game, IMO, and might indeed do better with a more serious FPS title. People who are just as ready to laugh at their own ridiculous death as someone elses, however, will enjoy TF2 immensely.

      cheers.
      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
  11. I'd buy a Mac if it was the best for gaming by Afecks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem I think is pricing. The base configuration of a high-end Mac Pro costs what I normally spend on a fully decked out SLI rig. I think the problem Apple faces (and knows) is that gamers aren't morons about hardware (most of us) and are unlikely to spend that much extra just for a Mac shell.

    After all, no gamer goes.. oohh I want a Dell XPS. No, they say, oohh I want a quad core Kentsfield and a 8800 GTX SLI blah blah blah.

    Apple just doesn't have the insight or ability to take Mac gaming BEYOND PC gaming. Coming in as a tie won't matter much but it will get a few people to jump ship that only hang around Windows for the next Tomb Raider game or whatever genre they like. Apple is not stupid, they know that gaming on a Mac won't add much, however it is inevitable if Mac is ever going to be viable in the mass market. No those few percentage points don't count.

    Queue Mac trolls telling me how I just don't get it..

    1. Re:I'd buy a Mac if it was the best for gaming by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Apple is not stupid, they know that gaming on a Mac won't add much, however it is inevitable if Mac is ever going to be viable in the mass market. No those few percentage points don't count.

      Apple would be stupid if they see gamers as a few percentage points. I see gamers being the 80/20 of hardware sales. Gamers easily buy the most new cutting edge hardware of anyone running the desktop even if their numbers in the overall desktop community is a minority.

      If Apple prides itself on producing high end system they would be wise to lure in gamers who also pride themselves in being the buyers of high end systems.

      If the iPod fashion wave of Apple dies anytime soon they're going to have people sitting on the same boxes for years since they work. The only serious faction of the desktop community that looks to replace working hardware with any real numbers is the gamers. Gamers have such a high turnover for hardware that their minority numbers would bulk up to much more.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:I'd buy a Mac if it was the best for gaming by Afecks · · Score: 1

      Apple would be stupid if they see gamers as a few percentage points. I see gamers being the 80/20 of hardware sales. I wasn't implying that gamers aren't a huge percentage but to Apple they're worthless because they can't do anything for them except be worse than or just the same as PC gaming.

      Apple can't just match PC gaming, they would have to actually outperform the PC market if they expect gamers to switch on that standpoint alone. Your typical gamer isn't going to switch to OS X just to get the exact same performance they could with Windows, with fewer games, higher cost and more effort. It would only matter if they were already looking to switch to OS X.
    3. Re:I'd buy a Mac if it was the best for gaming by Jthon · · Score: 1

      You're pretty much right about the Mac Pro, but that's because you're buying a workstation not a gaming system. Apple's selling you dual Xeons, and FBDIMMS rather that the standard consumer configuration. It's competitively priced with the Dell workstation line.

      While I love my Powerbook Apple insists on ignoring the game market and so I must ignore their Desktops. Before Apple "embraces" gaming they need to allow graphics upgrades in their tower cases beyond the 2 Apple approved upgrades. Gamers don't want to buy an entirely new system when the next big graphics card comes out in six months to a year, when their old CPU is still plenty fast. Plus I wouldn't call a 7300, X1900, and a QUADRO really a good set of choices for gaming.

      As for the iMac line, they're nice, well designed, functional systems but do not have the flexibility required to be a good game machine. For gaming I don't want a giant all in one monitor/PC I want a tower I can upgrade, and a nice big independent monitor. Maybe they might useful for those people buy those huge Dell gaming "laptops" as an alternative to haul to lan parties. (Of course they lack the overdone and garish lights everywhere so true "gamers" won't like them.)

  12. Turnover rate? by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    Is the turnover rate at Apple really that high? Why are people leaving so fast? And in entire teams? Can I type a sentence that isn't a question?

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Turnover rate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Apple is growing so quickly that they have to keep promoting people to bigger and better things. ;)

      I wouldn't be surprised if there was a lot of turnover at the "gaming" department, though. Nobody at Apple really cares that much about that market; they want to support general things like good multimedia support, not highly specific things like providing game makers a bunch of tools to make games.

      Not sure if that's a good thing or not, but I do find Gabe Newell's complaints to be kinda hypocritical. Valve is basically a company that's completely in love with doing things the Microsoft way. His idea of proper game support from Apple would probably be completely reimplementing the DirectX API on their systems.

    2. Re:Turnover rate? by virgil_disgr4ce · · Score: 1

      I always found the Apple turnover rate to be rather low -- I mean, they're delicious, but I can only eat a few of them before it's just too much. --tedb0t

  13. Yes and no. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    To stay on the bleeding edge they need better options, but for many games out there the games will play just fine at 1024x768, some cases higher. Hell, you can run 5 copies of WOW on my 2.16 C2D iMac ;)

    I think Apple as a whole is too distracted by trying to do too many things at once. You know that the iPhone had to take a lot of focus to pull off. Yes while they talk about increasing Mac marketshare I don't think its their bread and butter anymore and probably no where near the direction they will go and stay. In other words, Macs are here until they become #3 or lower in the revenue chain.

    What would I like?

    A headless machine which can accept an Apple approved video card in PCI format. Perhaps a slightly thicker iTV with the card mounted horizontally. The problem is, Macs are generally more stable simply because you cannot add any card you want, let alone the horrible drivers some bring.

    Be realistic in your game choices and a Mac will do just fine. Yeah they won't run the latest texture hog as 2536x1234 or what not but in many cases they do just fine with 1024x768 or close.

    The only thing I could never figure was the choice of cards in the new aluminium iMacs, major step backwards in performance versus the 7600GT option (which is in my iMac)

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Yes and no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's wrong with the Mac Pro line?

  14. Sounds like whining by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds like whining from Valve to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Apple is a saint or anything. They should probably make things easier and up the hardware a little more.

    Other game companies have made games for Apple no problem: ID, EA, Blizzard, etc. The difference is they accept that they have to go with OpenGL. Some of them are fairly recent ones too. Apple has even made 1-2 updates that include fixes for a game, so they "care." I've always seen it as an effort vs reward type of thing: a bunch of work for a smaller audience makes it less likely to happen.

    My guess is they're asking Apple to do something along the lines of Direct-X, to make it easy to adapt an DX game for some mythical Apple architecture. They probably want big architecture changes or additions, things they aren't just going to do on a whim because of Valve.

    After the things Valve did, it's hard for me to take their side after just hearing their claim. Heck, even against MS I'd have a hard time just believing Valve.

    1. Re:Sounds like whining by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Oh, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as anyone who owned a Mac back then, when Half-Life's Mac version was canceled Valve can just shut the frak up. Yeah, ask Gabe why they canceled THAT. Sure, it was tainted by being a late-Sierra project [1], but it was Half Life ! And it was gonna be on the Mac ! Bastards.

      http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t-18299.html

      Bastards !!!

      [1] No network play with PCs, PC mods wouldn't work, this is why Sierra died.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    2. Re:Sounds like whining by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      Funny, 1 person mods my previous post as Informative, and another as Flamebait. I don't really see my post as qualifying for that.

      I kept it balanced, I said Apple is no saint and definitely has things they need to improve if they want gaming. But some of the things from the article did sound like whining on Valve's part. They went in and suggested things that (in Valve's opinion) Apple could do, and they didn't get done. Yet other companies have done fine with what Apple has, usually those that work with more with OpenGL.

      In the end, it comes down to effort vs reward: Apple gaming market is small, so why bother. Nothing is stopping Valve from developing Apple games except their view that the effort isn't worth the reward, which I can't blame them for since that's the feelings for most publishers and developers.

      But in the end, it's just Valve's side of the story and their PoV tends to have an odd skew to it.

    3. Re:Sounds like whining by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      A few points:

      1) The factual accuracy here is questionable. This is 5 years old. Right after, somebody claimed that HL2 was "100%" coming to Mac because he "knew a guy" who worked at Valve as a mapper.

      2) According to the forum posts, Sierra cancelled the project, not Valve

      3) It would have run in software mode, most likely, since I don't recall Macs having dedicated 3D hardware back then. Half-Life limited to software mode isn't worth having at all. It made sense when HL1 was initially released to include a software renderer, but by the time the mac port would have come out (1999), software rendered FPS games were pretty much dead.

      Mac gamers were given a different choice two years later, anyhow, when Half-Life was (officially) released on the PS2 and (unofficially) on the Dreamcast in 2001. The cost of getting that purchased and running is less than a decent graphics card, so other than the two year delay, would have been a better option for Mac gamers.

    4. Re:Sounds like whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then, shouldn't Apple be making the effort to put less strain on game developers if they truly want games on their platform? If you represent a small market segment, you have to court people to come to play in your garden. You don't get to say "here's how it work, like it or lump it". So Apple should be putting together a gaming API to make it easier for everyone to develop for their platform.

      Heck, there are companies out there selling engines where you simply say "Compile for 360" or "Compile for Wii" and make sure you stick to their API and you're golden. Why not make sure those companies can produce compilers for your platform as well?

    5. Re:Sounds like whining by Solra+Bizna · · Score: 1

      Late 1998 or early 1999 was when Macs started coming with 3D hardware by default, IIRC. And there was third-party 3D hardware for the Mac long before then (not that I would know).

      -:sigma.SB

      --
      WARN
      THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
    6. Re:Sounds like whining by ebichete · · Score: 1
      This doesn't qualify as whining. John Carmack said pretty much the same things about Apple and gaming (including the whole game team turnover issue). It seems to be a pretty accurate representation of the Apple position, albeit from a person/company who are not (publicly) seen as engaging with Apple on gaming.

      Sounds like whining from Valve to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Apple is a saint or anything. They should probably make things easier and up the hardware a little more.

      Other game companies have made games for Apple no problem: ID, EA, Blizzard, etc. The difference is they accept that they have to go with OpenGL. Some of them are fairly recent ones too. Apple has even made 1-2 updates that include fixes for a game, so they "care." I've always seen it as an effort vs reward type of thing: a bunch of work for a smaller audience makes it less likely to happen.

      My guess is they're asking Apple to do something along the lines of Direct-X, to make it easy to adapt an DX game for some mythical Apple architecture. They probably want big architecture changes or additions, things they aren't just going to do on a whim because of Valve.

      After the things Valve did, it's hard for me to take their side after just hearing their claim. Heck, even against MS I'd have a hard time just believing Valve.
  15. Tilting at windmills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple only sells one computer that isn't a laptop crammed into a tight enclosure, and its default price is USD2500. Unless GPUs reduce their heat envelope, Apple won't bother putting anything worth having inside of the computers that sell the most units; making the Mac as a gaming platform less appealing.

    Apple isn't going to cannibalize the Mac Pro by introducing a pragmatic desktop Mac. Apple always releases configurations that provide some unique incentive to buy while providing encouragement for spending a lot more money on something else.

    I don't think it's the best way they could go about things, but Apple doesn't really care what anyone else thinks.

  16. It seems gabe newell... by Clete2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It seems that Gabe Newell wants to comment on every platform but Windows' failure. I remember a while back, he commented on Linux's gaming failures. Now, he's complaining about Macintosh's gaming failures.

    Where's an article from Gabe Newell on Windows' gaming failures? Sure, there are many games on Windows, but the performance on some is horrible compared to the performance of the same games on Linux or Macintosh platforms. Windows takes up so much RAM, lowering overall game performance.

    In my opinion, Gabe Newell thinks he is God and that he owns the gaming world. This is just what I seem to get from all of his articles.

    Disclaimer: In general, I respect Gabe Newell and he did a wonderful job with Steam and the Half-Life series and their subsidiaries.

    1. Re:It seems gabe newell... by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

      It's alright. The switch to consoles has started and it's only a matter of time before they ditch the desktop all together. Then all them there computers will become irrelevant.

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    2. Re:It seems gabe newell... by nsebban · · Score: 1

      Windows is a gaming failure, just as it is a desktop failure : - Everyone uses it. - Some people even pay for it. - The whole industry considers it as the De Facto standard (for non-console gaming). Let's start calling Windows a failure, the day it doesn't make money to Microsoft anymore. Right now it's the only non-console platform that 99.99% gamers in the world will consider.

      --
      ____
      nico
      Nico-Live
    3. Re:It seems gabe newell... by Clete2 · · Score: 1

      You are completely correct, but just because it makes Microsoft tons of money does not necessarily mean it is a success for gaming. It's far from that.

    4. Re:It seems gabe newell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment makes no sense at all. If I sell a product that dominates the market and has the most titles produced and sold for it, HOW CAN YOU NOT CALL THAT A SUCCESS? Whether you like it or not, Windows is an unbelievably successful platform for games. Is it technologically the best gaming platform...that's a better question for the answer you provided.

      Market pwnage = success

      Apple's gaming marketshare = fail

    5. Re:It seems gabe newell... by bomanbot · · Score: 1

      Where's an article from Gabe Newell on Windows' gaming failures?
      Uhm, you mean like the one where he talks about Microsofts "terrible mistake" in PC gaming, which was even discussed here on slashdot?
    6. Re:It seems gabe newell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's probably not discussing it because windows is not a failure. Tell the truth, you touch yourself at night while thinking of Jobs, don't you?

    7. Re:It seems gabe newell... by theantipop · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are many games on Windows, but the performance on some is horrible compared to the performance of the same games on Linux or Macintosh platforms.
      You've got my attention, but have you got any examples?
    8. Re:It seems gabe newell... by Kelz · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm a gamer, and I want to get out of windows. Macs have (in general) expensive and crappy hardware (though arguably they run more efficiently), and Linux is still a joke for games. I don't like waiting 3 months after a driver release to actually be able to use them.

      If it actually worked, I'd move to linux extremely quick.

    9. Re:It seems gabe newell... by Clete2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, let me clarify. It seems I was half asleep when I wrote that comment. It's a financial success. Definitely. Nobody argues with that. It is not a success in the field of gaming performance. Not because DirectX is inefficient, not because OpenGL sucks, but simply because of all of the overhead that Windows introduces into the enviornment. Just booting Vista Ultimate (32-bit) without running any additional software hogs 700MB of my 2GB of RAM. I don't ever recall an OS that hogs more RAM.

    10. Re:It seems gabe newell... by Clete2 · · Score: 1

      I don't have any current benchmarks, but I know that when I was running XP on my desktop (see below) alongside Gentoo on the very same machine, I received these results: 10-13FPS higher in America's Army on Gentoo Linux and ~5 seconds less loading time consistently 8-10FPS higher in Enemy Territory on Gentoo Linux Desktop: 1GB RAM PC3200 2.8GHz P4 w/Hyperthreading 800MHz FSB Abit IC7-MAX3 motherboard ATI Radeon X800 XT PE I admit that Linux has failed to capture game programmers' interests, so there are not many good games out for Linux. That is why I don't have any more benchmarks.

    11. Re:It seems gabe newell... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Just booting Vista Ultimate (32-bit) without running any additional software hogs 700MB of my 2GB of RAM. Aha! You were talking about Windows *Vista*. In that case your point becomes clear. I don't think there's any contention that Vista is a failure, full stop. It also happens to be a gaming failure but that gets lost in the crowds of other fail.

      Windows XP is a winning platform for gaming.
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    12. Re:It seems gabe newell... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      On exactly the same hardware (GeForce 6800GT, P4 3.2GHz, 1GB of RAM) I get pretty similar rendering performance in WoW in both XP and Ubuntu/Wine. The networking, however, is unbelievably better under Linux - I tend to drop around 150ms latency, which when you're going from 500ms to 350ms is quite something. Not only that, but the Linux network stack has some scheduling fairness jibba-jabba that means I can download while playing without killing my latency. Of course that doesn't help the other computers on our home network... ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  17. Specifics? by Amigori · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    What specifically is holding them back? Are they looking for some kind of subsidy from Apple, or something? OpenGL is standard and well documented. HID is standard. CoreAudio is fairly new for audio programming. TCP/IP standard stacks for netplay. XCode is a decent IDE. I agree that graphics cards are certainly behind PC versions, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. Any geek seriously into gaming is already going to have a 2+button USB mouse to plug in. And that B.S. question about an Apple console...pointless.

    "wow, gaming is incredibly important, we should do something with gaming". And then we'll say, "OK, here are three things you could do to make that better"...
    Three things that could be better, but do already function, yet you're not using them.

    "We'd love it if they would get serious about it. But they never have, and can't even follow trough on any of their commitments for game developers."
    Perhaps this is because the developers Apple has been more interested in move systems worth $4k+ and develop software packages at $1k+. The systems people buy for themselves are not the uber-equipped MacPros, but the iMacs and MacBooks, at least numbers-wise.

    People who want to develop games for Mac need to think more like a console developer: 1) Here's a standard set of tools. 2) Here's a limited range of hardware. 3) Here's a growing market of people looking for games, both simple and advanced. Gabe and Valve have chosen to develop on the "cutting edge" for the advanced players, which means DX10, fancy Audio engines (for the 5% of users who have more than a 2.1 setup), support for Physics coprocessors, and as much bandwidth as the graphics card allows, all of which means Windows only. Nothing wrong with that, gotta make money somehow. The Mac gaming market is there, they just don't want to participate. And how many hardcore gamers of Valve's target market only have a Mac? No PC, PS2/3, Xbox, 360, etc. They'll get their gaming fix somehow.
    --
    "The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
    1. Re:Specifics? by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      I'm a Mac user, and also an indie game developer. I love OSX, but I develop exclusively on Windows. Why? Because DirectX is a million times the lib that OpenGL is. I know open source advocates don't like hearing it - but look, object-oriented (I don't care what you say, a C API falls apart at that level of complexity), well supported by a massive developer base, and well maintained, and not afflicted with proprietary-video-card-extensions-itis.

      In short, OpenGL works, and it works well, but it's also a major PITA. If I had an infinite amount of time and manpower, sure, I'd write everything in OpenGL, but considering Windows' market share and DX's ease, my time is better spent there. I'd like to tackle the Mac segment, and maybe I will if the market is large enough to be worth the hassle - but until then my code is Win-only.

      Three things that could be better, but do already function, yet you're not using them.

      Cost benefit. Just working and functional is not enough for a business. It may be for a hobbyist who's willing to accommodate the hassle to get something done, but for a business that is going to spend a certain number of very real, very costly man-hours to develop the port, there needs to be a worthwhile return. What Gabe is saying to Apple is - reduce OUR cost for porting to your platform (by reducing the human investment required) and we'll port, otherwise your platform simply won't have enough sales for us to justify the effort.

      The trick between Macs and consoles is that they both require a certain installed base for developers to be interested. The GameCube had games only because Nintendo developed for themselves. Third parties wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole precisely because the installed base was insufficient to be worth the effort. The Windows side is a larger segment and any game developer will not target Mac exclusively, not at their current market share. Developers are not miffed at the limited performance of Mac hardware, we will make do with what we have, so long as people who own those machines are willing to buy our games.

      I'm definitely looking into developing on the Mac, given its growing market share. But I would hope that by the time I'm settled on that decision we see actual developer support, instead of just a cursory page on their dev site. I would also hope they come up with something unified and comprehensive that can go head to head with DirectX.

    2. Re:Specifics? by nanowired · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I enjoy OpenGL a lot more than DirectX. I think the problem here... and I could be wrong.. is that OpenGL's technology hasn't advanced that much, while it appears that DirectX's technology has. Appears, because half of marketing is smoke and mirrors.

    3. Re:Specifics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There isn't anything object-oriented about Direct3D. Object-orientation refers to polymorphism and encapsulation. There is a strong component-oriented design to DirectShow but that is of little use to most game developers. Your commentary about a "C API falling down" is pretty amusing. The portion of a game that is dependent on the underlying 3D API is incredibly tiny. I've never worked on a project where we didn't abstract it away for portability. However very many projects successfully make use of OpenGL, and did so before Direct3D was even thought of.

    4. Re:Specifics? by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      I've heard plenty of people say they hate working in DirectX as well. Looking at source code examples in both, my impression has been:

      1) DirectX does a bit more for you (built in vector and matrix classes, for example)
      2) It looks butt fugly - but maybe that's just me, I hate hungarian and microsoft's naming conventions in general :)

      Really, so little of a game is the graphics code, though, and any decent game dev is going to be using their own wrapper classes anyway.

      The problems are more that you can get access to new features earlier in DirectX. It has been moving faster in general - you can get the same features in OpenGL as quickly, but you have to use an extension.

      That said - since 2.0 opengl actually has a pretty complete set of functions. Render to texture, a nicer shading language - all pretty nicely supported, you just have to toss a quick C++ wrapper around their api if you want it to be pretty and you're good to go.

      The real problem with Apple is driver support.

      Get this straight everyone - Microsoft only ships OpenGL 1.0 with their systems, they have for a long time. ATI and NVIDIA write their own versions of the openGL spec for their drivers, which all have fun little issues. But on windows they release those at their own pace. On mac OS it all gets rolled into a big driver update once in a blue moon. And neither of those companies puts as much time into those drivers as they do for their windows side.

      The thing that Valve is probably complaining about are probably some bugs in the Opengl or audio drivers (btw, while Core Audio seems nice, OpenAl is a buggy piece, and that's more what you'd be likely using for 3d audio support, if there are even any mac cards that support 3d audio right now, I know there weren't back when I was gaming on it) that apple has taken a really long time fixing and were core to some feature they wanted.

      Or maybe apple just wanted them to buy their dev systems instead of handing them out as encouragement... who knows... or, I know it was only recently that apple introduced an OpenGL debugger. The good ones on windows are all third party, but apparently Gremedy didn't wnat to bring theirs over to mac or something.

      Basically, there are a lot of things that a developer does depend on to make the games run. Just OpenGL versus DirectX is a small part of it, and working with docs and drivers that haven't been updated in a long time can get really frustrating.

    5. Re:Specifics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote, but I wouldn't say OpenAL would necessarily be a big deal. A lot of modern games don't even use 3D hardware audio anymore, they've gone for software-only engines which will work with the vast universe of audio solutions that only do 2D audio anyway. Heck, Creative basically had to hack hardware accelerated 3D audio back into Vista (it can't be doing their business any good--I've never had a very good experience with Creative drivers). So no, I doubt OpenAL would be a hold-up. And I like OpenGL. So who knows. Maybe it's just too weird for a Microsoftie like Newell to get a handle on.

    6. Re:Specifics? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Gabe and Valve have chosen to develop on the "cutting edge" for the advanced players, which means DX10, fancy Audio engines (for the 5% of users who have more than a 2.1 setup), support for Physics coprocessors, and as much bandwidth as the graphics card allows,"

      Um, no. the minimum requirements for all of Valve lineup is quite low.. they even do surveys every 6 months or so to see what the majority of users are running and develop a level below that.

      Of course they do support higher end setups but this is not the baseline as you would purport.

    7. Re:Specifics? by initdeep · · Score: 1

      (for the 5% of users who have more than a 2.1 setup)

      HUH?!?!?!

      Even most reasonably low end computers with on-board audio have 5.1 sound and have for years.

      And most of the higher end motherboards that would be used by gamers (the ones that support SLI or Crossfire) have at least 5.1 if not 7.1 sound ONBOARD.

      Sounds like someone doesn't have a clue....

    8. Re:Specifics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did not say "the 5% of users who are capable of having more than a 2.1 setup", he said "the 5% of users who have more than a 2.1 setup." You have to actually buy the speakers too, not just the sound card.

      Try reading before you comment, next time.

    9. Re:Specifics? by CloudsSpaz · · Score: 1
      You're kidding right?

      Valve specifically tailors their games to the low end of the hardware market, similar to Blizzard. The HL2 engine is DX9, not 10, and runs great on a huge range of hardware... including and most specifically store-bought PCs with stock videocards and processors.

      If I recall correctly, there are only two games on the market designed for the PhysX PPU (both of which have GRAW in their title). Not to mention that the Half-Life 2 engine specifically uses the Havok SDK as opposed to the PhysX SDK.

      There might be a mac gaming market (I sincerely doubt it) to promote, but don't generalize about the established PC market if you don't know what you're talking about.

    10. Re:Specifics? by supabeast! · · Score: 1

      What specifically is holding them back?

      Well, for starters Apple stayed on PPC too long. Game companies weren't going to optimize code for two CPU platforms, so that meant they could all get comfy programming for DirectX--especially Direct3D. Now that Apple has x86, it lacks the API game programmers are used to working with, meaning that to write code for Apple a game company has to spend a lot of extra programming money. That's not something most companies are going to do given how much smaller Apple's market share is than Microsoft's.

      Then there's Apple's tendency to overcharge for crappy, outdated video hardware, meaning that Apple gamers are always lagging behind PC gamers, so that game designers have to keep that in mind and design for two different user experiences.

      If Apple wants to bring the game companies over, it has to do two things: first, get a solid, first part DirectX compatibility layer of some sort into OS X. Something much better than CIDER, which has performance, rendering, and stability issues. Second, Apple has to give up a little of it's high profit margins and start shipping systems with better video chips. Those crappy intel GMA950 chips Apple is so enamored with don't even support all of the shaders the GUI needs--no 3D game programmer can be expected to take that seriously!

    11. Re:Specifics? by Amigori · · Score: 1

      as an AC commented, I merely meant the actual speakers. Yes, most mainstream audio cards have supported 5.1 for years, but no one outside of my gaming friends runs more than 2 speakers, sometimes a subwoofer.

      --
      "The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
    12. Re:Specifics? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      but that actually has nothing to do with developing for advanced audio engines does it? if a card/controller can play 64 simultaneous sounds at once and the game can support that.. it doesn't matter if you are using all speakers, you will still hear the other sounds.

      Not to mention most modern sound controllers can emulate a surround effect even when wearing headphones.. i would hope the game designers are developing for this feature.. esp in FPS games.

  18. Gabe Newell and Valve are a Bit Biased by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 0

    I'm not saying the argument is without merit. Apple could probably do a lot to promote games on their platform, but one really should consider the source a bit. Valve is about the only major game publisher not owned by MS that doesn't port their mainstream titles to the Mac. Everyone else sees the business case and makes money off of it, but Valve seems to have really drank the MS kool-aid. That's not exactly surprising seeing as both Mr. Newell and co-founder Mike Harrington were Microsoft employees before starting Valve. His argument about getting poorer support from Apple than from his old company falls a little flat in that light. I get better support too when I call companies I used to work and where I still know people, than calling some random company.

    Now on the other hand, I think Apple could and should do a lot more to support gaming on the Mac. They should be collaborating with Sony to promote OpenGL toolkits to target multiple platforms more easily. If they have to, they should go the MS route and start buying up innovative gaming companies to secure them on Macs as first class citizens. In a normal market, this would not be an issue, but MS has been throwing their monopoly influence around a lot and in the past has bought some of the best Mac gaming companies (Bungie) resulting in problems for gaming on the Mac. MS gets double value for their lock-in dollars with the Xbox, which is why Apple needs to partner with Sony or Nintendo. Still, I'm not sure the guys at Valve provide an objective viewpoint. They are an anomaly and I'd much rather hear from Id, Blizzard, or EA for an objective opinion on this topic.

    1. Re:Gabe Newell and Valve are a Bit Biased by vhold · · Score: 1

      "Valve is about the only major game publisher not owned by MS that doesn't port their mainstream titles to the Mac. "

      Erm.. What?

      Mac Games Release Calendar: http://www.amazon.com/Mac-Games/b?ie=UTF8&node=229647
      PC Games Release Calendar: http://www.amazon.com/PC-Games/b?ie=UTF8&node=229575

      Notice the 'more' links on the PC list. There are single days where the PC will see more mainstream games released then the Mac will see for the rest of the year. Also notice those mac games.. they aren't exactly fresh titles.

    2. Re:Gabe Newell and Valve are a Bit Biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They [Apple] should be collaborating with Sony to promote OpenGL toolkits to target multiple platforms more easily.

      I thought you said they should be collaborating with Sony to promote OpenGL ROOTkits for a second there. Why specifically Sony in this case? I thought we all know what sort of work Sony does, right?

  19. Touche? more like D..... by nanowired · · Score: 1

    You sir, do not know your art. TF2's artwork is blatently copied from one "The Impossibles", which is clearly an American title stylized after american comic books.

  20. So what where the three issues? by Chainsaw · · Score: 1

    You can't really comment on the whole "Apple does nothing for game developers" until you know exactly what the man asked for. If it's insane stuff like "implement DX10 and the Windows API, and equip every computer with at least dual nVidia 8800GTS 2GB", I can understand Apple. On the other hand, if it's reasonable thought, such as shipping SDL with the OS...

    --
    War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
    1. Re:So what where the three issues? by kristjansson · · Score: 1

      shipping SDL with the OS is irrelevant. embed the libsdl framework in the application. it doesn't take much room, and as a fringe benefit, you don't have to worry about incompatible versions of libsdl on the system. It almost makes it unreasonable to include libsdl in the system because of the framework mechanisms available...

  21. Is Mac hardware really that bad? by bj+bignell · · Score: 1

    I might be a bit out of touch with what's new and hot in gaming hardware, but are the new iMacs (for example) really that bad? I would think that they've got to be enough, especially for casual gamers like myself. My new iMac 20" with 4GB of RAM runs Call of Duty 2 at max resolution (but not max quality graphics options) just fine. I don't care if it has tri-linear-max-bump-shaded-whatzits; it looks good enough for me. Are modern games so bad that they aren't worth playing without maximum graphic effects?

    1. Re:Is Mac hardware really that bad? by theantipop · · Score: 1

      The crux of the situation is that there is exactly one Mac with upgradeable graphics. The most obscenely expensive one. The rest come with discrete solutions that are half a step above the integrated offerings from Intel at best. So if you wanted to play, say, Crysis on your iMac you're simply out of luck. Yes, you may be able to get brand new games to run, but you will be missing out on the vast majority of graphical enhancement they are packing into the newest games. While I'm not advocating playing games simply because of graphics, I will point out that if you are going to be playing the newest games your investment in a Mac is probably a poor one.

    2. Re:Is Mac hardware really that bad? by bj+bignell · · Score: 1

      Point taken. There are no graphic card options for the iMacs. On the plus side, however, I've never even heard of "Crysis" so I don't feel the least bit out of luck. Hooray for ignorance!

    3. Re:Is Mac hardware really that bad? by micpp · · Score: 1

      Well, it certainly can't hurt to have maximum graphics effects, especially when your competitors seem to manage that just fine.

  22. Valve are whiny babies by alongley · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First off, if your FIRST reaction to this post is along the lines of "you fools, there are no games for Macs" or "Mac hardware is so much more expensive than PC hardware", you are obviously bringing a lot of personal bias to the discussion. This topic has nothing to do with those topics. Many companies make many great Mac games with or without Apple's support. My takeaway from this is that Valve couldn't make their own business case for porting to the Mac. They are of course entirely within their rights to do this, but to shift the blame to Apple is patently ridiculous. They may not be doing it because they wouldn't make much money, or because they are incompetent and can't figure out the APIs, or whatever. But his reasoning that somehow Apple needs to hold their hand through the process, and THAT's the stumbling block about porting, flies in the face of all the great games that already exist. I see a speck of hubris on Apple's part, but that's Apple's problem. Mac users suffer for it, but the blame lays squarely with Valve for the lack of port.

    --
    How do I edit my sig.
    1. Re:Valve are whiny babies by Synic · · Score: 1

      Historically, the lack of available gaming grade graphics hardware and decent gaming-oriented OpenGL drivers was a big problem on the Mac platform. However, these days OpenGL has lost so much ground in comparison to Direct3D, in terms of keeping pace with gaming graphics hardware, that nobody bothers to learn OpenGL unless you are in an academic or scientific setting (or stuck on Macs, I suppose).

    2. Re:Valve are whiny babies by theantipop · · Score: 1

      Your post is kind of all over the place, but I think you are bit too worked up over this and may be reading too much into the interview answers. They are very light on details and could be indicative of a whole host of issues (the most likely of which are hardware options, not hardware cost, and marketing initiatives, IMO). He mentions developers asking for "things", but since I have no graphics programming experience and am by no means an OS X expert, I have no idea what this could mean. I sincerely doubt it is due to developers who are "incompetent and can't figure out the APIs."

      You certainly are correct that this is ultimately Valve's decision. I just get the feeling that Gabe is expressing his frustration over Apple's apparent lack of sincerity about the matter. I think it's pretty reasonable that if he were to decide his company would take the financial risk in opening up this market that he would like a certain degree of support from the vendor of those customers they would be exclusively catering too.

      Before you point to Blizzard as a shining example of platform support, note that their games tend to have relatively weak hardware requirements and therefore are rendered nearly immune to what I consider the Mac's greatest weakness as a viable gaming computer.

  23. Can't play World of Warcraft with Mighty Mouse by Myria · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In WoW, pressing both the left and right buttons simultaneously means "walk forward". The Mighty Mouse can't click both buttons simultaneously due to its physical design. The Mighty Mouse is a 1.5-button mouse.

    (Yes, you can walk with the keyboard too.)

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:Can't play World of Warcraft with Mighty Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can't bind autowalk to pressing the middle button? Or pressing the side buttons? Or anything on the keyboard? Sorry if you're too stupid to figure out how to use a four button mouse, but the rest of the world does just fine.

  24. If wishes were fishes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If wishes were fishes, all FOSSies would cast nets!

    Teh Lunix has had over 15 years to be something other than a Windows wanna-be, and has failed. That's not Microsoft's fault... since MS isn't trying to program teh Lunix.

    And at the same time teh Lunix zealots are puling about "OMG TEH MIKKKR0$$$$LOTH TAX!!!11!!1", on the other side of their mouth they are praising OS X, and gleefully overpaying "the Apple Tax" for your pretty new iLamp, then paying $150 for your yearly service pack, then overpaying for whatever other stuff SteveJob can sucker you into buying. All with a big grin!

    Typical FOSSie "logic"- claim to be "all about choice"... but in reality demonstrate how you are really about any choice, so long as it dare not be Microsoft.

    As far as the "reality based community" goes, most people are perfectly happy with Windows. Especially if you are a gamer- for gaming, Windows is the only way to go. It's not MS's fault their "competition" is far too limp to actually put in the hard work to get gaming to operate properly. Guess after all that work on making the case look pretty, they just don't have enough energy to get the OS working up to snuff.

  25. Party games for PC? by tepples · · Score: 1

    When you compare PC game sales to individual consoles, the PC sells more games than the 360, PS3, or Wii. But how many games that can use more than one USB gamepad per machine come out for Windows, Xbox 360, PLAYSTATION 3, or Wii platforms? I'd imagine that the majority of households with a gaming PC have more people than gaming PCs, except perhaps at universities. For instance, I have a PC connected to a TV, and others have PCs in arcade cabinets, and we're itching for some native games that use both joysticks.
  26. Yarr by tepples · · Score: 1

    I do doubt that kiddies who know nothing about computers would go for a PC instead of a Console, which only requires the most rudimentary knowledge to use. Modern kids will gain knowledge about computers just to be able to pirate console games from ROM sites. Google even guides them to this: if you search for sega genesis, it suggests "See results for: sega genesis roms".

    Second, the fact that a Gamer can build his gaming platform for abouts 500 dollars. Thats the same price as a PS3, yet more useful. If you include the 200 dollars for a GOOD monitor, versus the 500 dollars for a Good TV, its much cheaper or on par than the Next Gen consols. How many people who live in one house can fit around a GOOD monitor, vs. how many people can fit around a Good TV?

    However until someone comes out with am OS that runs on the hardware I have that has real games(read:Not minesweeper) developed for it Minesweeper not a real game? Try telling that to the regulars of this site or the guy who made this video.
    1. Re:Yarr by nanowired · · Score: 1

      The answer to the middle one: Two! on average. In the right circumstances in both cases, you can have 8 people playing. Not simo, mind you.

      In the end though, the Great Console Gods are trying to find ways to make multiplayer on consoles more expensive. Rockband comes to mind. And a past example is the gamecube attachment you needed to play FF:Crystal Chronicles, plus 4 GBAs.

      And finally: Lolz, Minesweeper.

    2. Re:Yarr by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The answer to the middle one: Two! on average. Which also happens to be the typical number of players per arcade cabinet. So why don't more of the popular games for Windows or Mac support a 2-player split-screen or shared-screen (think Gauntlet or Bomberman or Smash Bros.) mode? And why doesn't Windows or Mac support two independent mouse-like pointing devices, so that some indie can make (say) co-op Centipede for two trackballs? (Or does it?)
  27. yes, but does it run... by Phu5ion · · Score: 1

    I have to agree, gaming is important. So, where the hell is Steam on Linux?

    --
    Slashdot is kind of like Playboy; we aren't here to read the articles.
  28. You need six speakers for 5.1 by tepples · · Score: 1

    (for the 5% of users who have more than a 2.1 setup)

    HUH?!?!?!

    Even most reasonably low end computers with on-board audio have 5.1 sound and have for years.

    A 5.1 setup with nothing plugged into the center, left surround, or right surround connector is a 2.1 setup.
  29. Problem is by goldcd · · Score: 1

    that even with money-no-object, the XPS would be faster at running the games than the Apple quad-core monster. An XPS can be ordered with top-end graphics hardware, the Mac can't - they're just aiming at different markets.
    As you work down the Apple range comparing prices, the XPS will generally have (or have the option of having) better GPU grunt under the hood.
    Problem as I see it is that Apple != Games. Nobody buys a Mac to play games, therefore there's no need to bot the price/cut margin putting in a fast GPU, therefore still no games.

  30. what three things??? by Jeremy_Bee · · Score: 1

    I have been reading this dirtbags comments about the "three things" they want Apple to work on all day in various forms and I have yet to hear any specifics. This one has gone around the web and spurred a ton of discussion, but the discussion is all about how we "feel" about our PC's or the Games we may run on them.

    How about a few details? How about coming out and saying what it is that the Macs are missing?

    - Is it "Direct X"? (cause that isn't going to happen)
    - Is it better graphics cards? (they are the same ones in a comparably priced Windows box)

    I don't get why we are all bothering to take the criticism seriously, when it's so vague a complaint to begin with

  31. Gabe Newell you gimp by anduz · · Score: 1

    Apple never really needed gaming, it would've been neat and dandy for them but what they really needed was consumers who want laptops rather than desktops because they play their games on consoles. Which they're getting rather fast these days, and what do you know? It's timed fairly well with the huge lift in brand hype Apple has been building over the past few years with things like the ipod.

  32. Why every console is valid by DrYak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A common error people make is to compare the sales of console games for EVERY console platform to PC game sales.


    How many of your friends have got all three of current generation's consoles. Not many. Some do, but the avarage user has 1 box sitting under his TV.
    Same question about Macs vs. Windows operated PCs.

    Therefore, at the time of buying a game he hesitates between 2 option :
    - either buy it for his current computer.
    - or buy it for the console that sits in the living room.
    he's not hesitating between all different console release. Most of the usual gamers can't choose between XBox360, PS3 or Wii, because only one is available at home.

    And what number tells us, is that more often, the users prefer to buy a game for the console they have at home (whatever it is) instead of buying for their desktop (PC running Windows most of the time, Macs bootcamped into Windows in nearly every other case. Except for id Software game that are massively bought by us Linux gamers. All three of us...).

    Then yes, inside the "console" market, there isn't a monopoly as strong as in the computer market.
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Why every console is valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes that a particular game is going to be available for all three consoles, and has a PC version. That's very rare, except for movie tie-ins and similar. Most other games are available on, at most, two different platforms - usually either two consoles, or one console and a PC.

    2. Re:Why every console is valid by rtechie · · Score: 1

      This reasoning is very strange. The CLAIM we're addressing is NOT that PC gaming is more popular than console gaming. Nobody has made this claim. The claim we're addressing is whether or not PC gaming is "dying".

      And all available evidence contradicts that claim. PC game sales have increased every year. More PC games are released every year. Profitability at PC game companies is up. By any measure you want to make, PC gaming is doing better in 2007 than it did in 2006. And 2006 was better than 2005, and so forth.

      People have been predicting the death of the PC as a gaming platform since the release of the SNES. It's getting a little old.

  33. Amiga and gaming by DrYak · · Score: 1

    The Amiga was no more "optimized for games" than a Mac (to get back on topic)


    The bunch of coprocessors specifically designed to handle multimedia tasks in the Amiga beg to disagree.
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Amiga and gaming by fractoid · · Score: 1

      The bunch of coprocessors specifically designed to handle multimedia tasks in the Amiga beg to disagree. And the GeForce 7300 GT in the Mac Pro offers a dazzling HDR-rendered normal-mapped riposte. Just because most of the specialized multimedia hardware is on (almost universally installed) add-on cards these days doesn't mean that modern systems with such cards aren't optimized for multimedia. Take a base system with onboard video and sound, and you have a server or desktop workstation. Add some more RAM, a flashy video card and maybe sound card (onboard is good enough for most gaming these days) and you've 'optimized' your computer for gaming.

      Dual-booting into a pirated copy of Windows to play games (oh come on, do you know any Apple fanboy who BOUGHT the windows they're running? Although when ReactOS gets good enough this problem will go away.) solved the "minesweeper, simpletext and photoshop" gaming stable problem. Now if only I could buy Mac Pro-style hardware with Linux installed... scratch that, if I could afford it at all I'd spend the money on something else, like a Lear jet. :P
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  34. I think you're forgetting... by Calledor · · Score: 1

    That up until recently (given the last decade of Macs) the little bastards were weighed down by terrible processors. Not terrible in quality, just terrible in updating compared to intel and AMD chips. Looking at pure specs, if you buy a mac with a video card it won't be half bad for running anything that has been out for 6 months or a year.

    I think developers basically forgot about Macs because it did take about three years for the G series of procs to catch up to pentiums. That's insane and also, the structure was different.

  35. Nothing's stopping you Gabe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit bullshitting, just port your game, there's system API's that'll just work.

    Seriously, STFU and just port already, geeze. I can never understand developers who want a big hugs and would rather bullshit to the press than port their frikin software. Are you just incompetent or keyboard averse? Port already, quit talking and PORT.

  36. Apple by Fairvision · · Score: 1

    Apple been having alot of problems lately! Seems their new Itunes store and Quicktime releases won't show apple content! the programs have been reaking havoc on browsers like IE 7 and safari! I can tell you I had to dump Quicktime and download the alternate player with quicktime codecs to see apple movie content on my PC! Something I had to figure out myself because even Microsoft had no definitive answers that helped!

  37. portal by drDugan · · Score: 1

    i watched the trailer for Portal and was dissapointed I could not get a version for my Mac.

    not so much that I would get a pc though

  38. Don't listen to anyone from Valve... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...These were the guys that ripped on Nvidia and convinced everyone that ATI was so wonderful. Well, turns out ATI cards are still crappy as ever, and Nvidia cards, EVEN the FX series, kick their asses in terms of overall quality.

    These are the same people who keep working on a pathetic modified QUAKE 1 engine, then everyone praises them for being so "advanced". That must be why it took them 6 years to make a game that only lasts for 2 hours.

    Steam is a giant multi-gigabyte invasion of privacy. The people who are subscribed to it are mostly young kids who don't know any better. Pity they are on their parents' computers.

  39. PPC, you mean like XBox 360? by argent · · Score: 1

    Well, for starters Apple stayed on PPC too long

    You mean the CPU that's in the XBox 360? That doesn't seem to be hurting Microsoft. Next ?

    Those crappy intel GMA950 chips Apple is so enamored with don't even support all of the shaders the GUI needs

    Now that one's a legitimate complaint... but all the PPC-era Macs had full 3d-capable video cards, while PC motherboards and Wintel laptops usually didn't.

  40. PS... by argent · · Score: 1

    get a solid, first part DirectX compatibility layer of some sort into OS X.

    Not only "no" but "hell no".

    DirectX only exists because Microsoft wanted a graphics standard they controlled that wasn't OpenGL, so they could use it to bone competitors. If you think OpenGL is a problem for Apple, having to implement DirectX to Microsoft's satisfaction would let Microsoft feed them the bone harder than you can possibly imagine.

  41. Valve's Gabe Newell's Non-MS Gaming Failures by Atriqus · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that Gabe must have decided some time ago that PC gaming on anything but the Microsoft platform is an inherent failure. If he actually had any interest in making his games multi-(PC)-platform, then maybe demanding Apple pay Valve $1 000 000 000 USD for just the rights to port HL2 probably wasn't the best start. And frankly, it's just sad when you see announcements like these, showing just how more proactive other people are about making Valve products available to new markets than Valve is itself.

    I'm starting to think that internally at Valve, their real stance on this is, "Why bother to support them, when they'll gladly hack compatibility for themselves?"

    --
    Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.