Slashdot Mirror
Valve Confirms Mac Versions of Steam, Valve Games
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Gamasutra:
"Valve will release a version of its Steam digital distribution service for Mac next month, along with Mac-native versions of its own games, the company confirmed today after days of hints — and owners of Valve games will have access to both platform versions. The Source engine, which Valve uses to develop all its internal titles and also licenses to third-party developers, will incorporate OpenGL in addition to DirectX, to allow Mac support for all Source developers. ... 'We are treating the Mac as a tier-1 platform, so all of our future games will release simultaneously on Windows, Mac, and the Xbox 360,' said Cook. 'Updates for the Mac will be available simultaneously with the Windows updates.'"
3 cheers for *native* Mac development, instead of just Cider builds!
Linux support is coming when porting it to linux becomes profitable, stop asking.
and owners of Valve games will have access to both platform versions.
In an age where publishers are doing everything in their power to tie your hands when it comes to their software, this simply amazes me.
We've got publishers who user DRM that renders a game useless after a half-dozen installs... And valve is going to let you run your games on two entirely different platforms?! Not two different computers... But wholly different platforms. Amazing.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
"The cost issue has become pretty meaningless to anyone who is willing to compare oranges to oranges: the cost of a Mac laptop or desktop with X features is pretty comparable to a Windows laptop or desktop with the same feature set, "
Only sort of.
There are fewer options for the Mac so there are configurations available for PC that just don't exists in the Mac worlds.
For instance a Core2Duo with a high end graphics card and no monitor.
If you already have a perfectly good monitor why get an all in one or a new monitor.
Yes if try and match the Apple configurations with a PC the price will be about the same.
But you can not get the equivalent to a an Mac Mini with a high end video card and a 3 1/2" Hard drive and no wifi or Bluetooth.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Actually there's a much bigger jump.
Windows and OSX are fairly well-regulated monocultures: you have a consistent idea about how installation is supposed to work, you know where to put your config files, you know what permissions you need and how to get them. You rarely need to worry about broken dependencies: they happen, but the platform vendors usually provide an updater you can distribute with your application.
On the other hand, Linux is an undifferentiated mass. An application developer literally cannot make any useful predictions about the end user's configuration, which means it's almost impossible to provide support. The state of Linux is fine - it's even very strong - when you're only talking about FOSS. When you start asking for money, you need to make sure that your software is Suitable for a Particular Purpose. Installation needs to be easy and it needs to work everywhere.
I'm offering 10:1 I get modded flamebait for not drinking the Linux Kool-Aid.
OS X is UNIX, Linux is Unix "like".
I love how people say this and presume they've just said something significant. Mac OS X's UNIX certification is not worth much more than the advertising bullet-point they us it for. Both Linux and Mac OS X are UNIX in every way that actually matters today, namely POSIX-compliance. It's not like UNIX certification grants Mac OS X special compatibility traits; it's still not binary compatible with any other UNIX, neither is it source compatible if you move beyond what's specified by POSIX and other common standards. So what do you think is the significance of your factually-based and pointless assertion?
Which Distro?
Ubuntu. And which version of Windows?
XP? Then you don't have DirectX 10. Vista/7 Only? Then XP people hate you. And professional, business, personal, what?
What sound system?
OpenAL, which will run on anything, including Windows and OS X. That's about as retarded as asking what graphics library you should use.
Lack of easy to install 3d drivers for nVidia and ATI. Actually the drivers for nVidia and ATI are pretty easy to install but probably beyond what some people will want to do.
Same exact thing, word for word, applies to Windows. The only difference is whether or not the OS was preloaded -- so buy a Dell with Ubuntu, problem solved.
I would love to see it but Linux and OSX are not that alike.
They're both Unix. They both use OpenGL.
on OSX you just target quicktime for audio and video playback.
According to another poster, quicktime for audio is deprecated in favor of a few APIs, including OpenAL -- in other words, if they've done this right, it is exactly the same on Linux and OS X. What else you got?
No need to worry what "legal" codecs are available.
Two big duh moments here.
First, you're a game developer. You can include codecs with your game, and you can encode your audio however the fuck you want. There is nothing stopping you from using Vorbis and Theora, as other developers have in the past.
If you really need the superior quality-per-bit, and you don't want to rely on your customers having a certain codec installed -- might fly for OS X, certainly won't for Windows -- you license. And that same exact license will cover your use of that codec on any OS.
Is Valve going to start targeting OpenGL?
No, their OS X port runs on magical pixie dust. Of course they're targeting OpenGL!
So basically every technical argument of yours is pure, unadulturated FUD and BS. Why are you still at +5 insightful?
But the real issue is lack of customers. I just don't see that many Linux users that don't dual boot into Windows for gaming.
And Mac users don't? Given the demographic, I'd expect Mac users to be able to afford the extra Windows license, even Parallels so they don't have to reboot.
If you don't get new customers it doesn't pay off.
Bullshit.
OSX offers a bigger pay off
See above. Also, it seems to me that more Mac people would be willing to dual-boot and/or run Parallels, and would have the funds to do so.
and fewer development issues.
Nope, pretty much every development issue you raised is completely moot, especially if they already have an OS X port.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!