Slashdot Mirror


Valve's Newell Thinks PS3 Needs To Be "Open Like a Mac"

Eraesr writes "Apparently Valve boss Gabe Newell thinks the PS3 needs to be more of an open platform, drawing a comparison to Apple's Mac platform. In an interview with 5BY5.TV, he said he would like to see the PS3 be 'open like a Mac' instead of being 'more closed like a Gamecube.' 'Platform investments, like the Mac, are difficult because you have to be aware of what direction that platform is moving,' Newell said, referring to the firm's recent move onto Macs with its titles and distribution service Steam. 'We need to target platforms that do a better job of looking like where we want to be in a few years.'"

51 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Open like a Mac, I get it,

    kind of like, Secure like a Windows?

    1. Re:Yeah by dov_0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple took some of the best of open source - and made sure they screwed with it enough that they could claim it as their own.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    2. Re:Yeah by figleaf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mac and Open together in a sentence is a Oxymoron.

    3. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, and enough to make parts of it refuse to work right, regardless of one's prior UNIX knowledge. I'll never forgive them for the "Internet Sharing" setting, which regularly fails even between a pair of Macs...then when you start trying to troubleshoot it you find that while natd is running, there's no natd.conf ...those bastards have wrapped it up in some proprietary binary object. Thanks Apple; you've successfully reinvented the wheel, and made it square to boot.

    4. Re:Yeah by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh I don't know, it seems from my experience that anal retentiveness seems pretty evenly spread across the users of all operating systems.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    5. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nothing like a completed unsubstantiated assertion in response to someone who not only gripped but supported his complaint with a specific example... an example you ignored/had no answer to.

    6. Re:Yeah by forkazoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Open like a Mac, I get it,

      kind of like, Secure like a Windows?

      You realise that the comparison is against a PS3, right?

      Besides, the Mac is a fairly open platform. You can get kernel code and Webkit code under a genuine open source license. Good luck getting Windows NT kernel code and IE rendering engine as open source projects. Apple's developer tools are built around gcc, and the default shell is bash. Apple provides X11 support out of the box, so you can build an app for a Mac, and trivially move it to another platform if you choose to rely only on open standards.

      Apple as a company may be psychotic, but I don't know why people insist the Mac is so hilariously closed.

    7. Re:Yeah by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2, Informative
      It sucks, but you need to make your own natd.conf, kill the process and restart natd with your configuration: sudo /usr/sbin/natd -alias_address x.x.x.x -interface en0 -use_sockets -same_ports -unregistered_only -dynamic -clamp_mss -f /Users/username/natd.conf

      Obviously you'll need to put the whole thing into a script and run it after the system is up.

      Your mileage may vary...

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    8. Re:Yeah by harlequinn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing like a supporting someone who thinks OS X, which is a FreeBSD/NetBSD frankenstein, which are "UNIX-like" operating systems, is UNIX (when it's not). It has been certified as UNIX 03 compliant from 10.5 onwards. Before this certification OS X was also "UNIX-like" - which means it didn't comply to any standard and one might find their "UNIX knowledge" a little out of place in any of the UNIX-like variants.

    9. Re:Yeah by Peach+Rings · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't support case-sensitive HFS+, so for those of us who use a non-toy configuration,

      From developer.apple.com:
      HFSX is an extension to HFS Plus to allow additional features that are incompatible with HFS Plus. The only such feature currently defined is case-sensitive filenames. (Emphasis added).

      It's not supposed to be compatible. At all. This is like complaining about KDE not compiling properly with a "perfectly sane" configuration of Hurd running on ARM. Even Adobe's CS2 and CS3 applications don't run at all on an HFSX volume.

    10. Re:Yeah by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Portal game itself crashes on launch if you try to run it on anything other than the most recent GPUs.

      Runs fine on my on my Geforce 8600gt. Not exactly state of the art by any means (3+ year old card).

      Have no idea why you would choose to complain after choosing to use case-senstive hfs... Why do you need that ,btw?

    11. Re:Yeah by Johann+Lau · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, open like a Mac compared to, say, a Gamecube. None of you going ROFL have actually watched even the first five minutes of the interview, have you? It's boring, it's annoying, but at least it clears up that misconception. None of you (so far, as I'm posting this) are actually discussing the subject of the article, anything he actually says.

      Oh, and just to make it clear, I think Mac sucks (1mousebuttonLOLOLOLkthxbai) and Valve is a bunch of greedy, uninspired whores. I'm not defending them, I don't care at all about this.... I just think y'all are tards too, for talking to/about strawmen exclusively. Cheers.

    12. Re:Yeah by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

      HFSX is an extension to HFS Plus to allow additional features that are incompatible with HFS Plus.

      You are completely misunderstanding that sentence. HFSX is incompatible with HFS+ because a filesystem B-tree sorts its keys in different ways depending on whether it is using case-sensitive or case-insensitive matching. As a result, at a volume format level, HFSX includes low-level changes that are incompatible with ancient tools that work with HFS+ volumes. If we were talking about a disk utility like DiskWarrior (which, incidentally, has supported HFSX since way back before it even became a GUI-selectable formatting option in the non-server version of Mac OS X)---an application that mucks around in the raw volume B-trees by accessing disk blocks directly, then yes, it would break when it encountered these volumes, and break massively. As a general rule, 99.99999% of application developers should not be anywhere near the low-level bits that the technote you referenced refers to.

      We're not talking about software that works with the volume format directly here. We're talking about software that opens files by passing hard-coded path names with incorrect case. Such apps also don't work when your home directory is:

      • On an NFS mount
      • On an AFP volume backed by a UNIX box
      • On an HFSX volume
      • On a UFS volume (in an older Mac OS X version where this was still supported for writing)

      And so on. That incompatibility list is only going to get longer as time moves forward. These days, case insensitive filesystems like HFS+ are the exception, not the rule.

      Moreover, Apple has never in any way even HINTED that not working on case-sensitive volumes is an acceptable practive, and even published Technote 2096 that basically says the precise opposite of what you're implying. Because the filesystem underlying iPhone OS is case sensitive, iPhone developers are strongly discouraged from building iPhone applications on case-insensitive HFS+ volumes. On case-insensitive volumes, the simulator can't catch bugs caused by case sensitivity mistakes, so when you finally get the app on an actual device and it fails miserably, you'll be scratching your head.

      In short, if your app doesn't work on case-sensitive volumes, now would be a good time to fix it, particularly if you want iPhone developers, web developers, etc. to use your software.

      This is like complaining about KDE not compiling properly with a "perfectly sane" configuration of Hurd running on ARM.

      No, this is like complaining about KDE running fine on an EXT3 volume, but crashing in bizarre, inexplicable ways when you migrate your system to EXT4. It's a sign that the developer couldn't be bothered to use correct capitalization in hard-coded filenames within their code. The ONLY relevant difference between case-sensitive and non-case-sensitive filesystems in Mac OS X is that if you write code that tries to load "~/Library/application support/whatever" instead of "~/Library/Application Support/Whatever", it will fail on the case-sensitive filesystem. The ONLY bugs it causes are entirely due to sloppy, bad coding on the part of the developer. Thus, software that won't work on HFSX volumes are like a giant shining beacon that screams "We don't know how to write software."

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Yeah by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Case-sensitive HFS+ is discouraged.

      Show me where any Apple web page says that. It most certainly is not discouraged in any way, shape, or form.

      It's amusing that you dismiss those of us who run OS X in its default config (HFS+) as "toy" when you're trying to get a game to run.

      I can think of quite a few security bugs over the years in Apache that have been specific to case-insensitive filesystems, plus *countless* other bugs in web applications, etc. So my server is case-sensitive, and my laptop is also case-sensitive so that I never have to worry about creating case-sensitivity bugs when I create content to upload to my web server. And if I were writing iPhone software, it would be case sensitive for that reason, too (as iPhone OS uses a case-sensitive volume format exclusively).

      Sure, I could parcel out the content that has to be case sensitive into a disk image. I can also parcel off broken applications into a case-insensitive disk image, to some extent. It's still an unnecessary hassle that could be fixed by the app developer spending about an hour to run a few scripts, fix the problems that it reports, and then reconfigure at least one of their test machines to be case-sensitive.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    14. Re:Yeah by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (I thought that it had been deprecated, but can't find any evidence of this)

      Nope. HFSX is fully supported and is most certainly not deprecated. You're thinking of the ancient UFS format that has been deprecated for a while. UFS is not only deprecated, but was actually demoted to read-only in Snow Leopard.

      The reason UFS is deprecated has nothing to do with case sensitivity, though. It's deprecated because A. it's very, very slow compared with HFS+, B. it doesn't support extended attributes or POSIX filesystem ACLs or any of the other dozen things that have been added to the VFS layer in Mac OS X over the last several years (so using it would break a LOT of things), and C. case-sensitive HFS+ made it largely unnecessary.

      What are you doing that makes this problematic?

      It's not that it's problematic. It's that I want to be certain that when I check in changes to the tree, they're not going to break my server when the update goes live.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:Yeah by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What, like that obscure filesystem, what's it's name, that no one uses? Oh, right, NTFS.

      NTFS, which dates back to the early 1990s, is hardly a modern filesystem. It is also a case-sensitive filesystem under the hood. This is masked by a case-insensitivity shim for applications accessing it through the Win32 API, but applications that use lower-level APIs get case-sensitive behavior. So I'll see your NTFS and raise you basically every single filesystem created in the past two decades.

      Case-sensitivity in a filesystem is not something a developer should have to care about, any more than they should have to care about, oh, I don't know, a lack of protected memory. Sure, it would be nice if people used correct cases, but really, it's 2010.

      Exactly. It's 2010. If twenty years of every single new filesystem being case-sensitive hasn't gotten people to realize that this is the direction technology is moving, I don't know what will....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Yeah by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You were speaking from the developer level when you were talking about case insensitivity. 95% of people own a computer that is case-insensitive in the practical sense. The default setting in OSX is case insensitive, and most people never go through the trouble to change it. Doing so requires either above average technical skill to do it the hard way, or way above average technical skill to do it the easy way.

      I cannot see how you can honestly say that case insensitivity is the exception and not the rule when 99% of people in the world use a filesystem that is case insensitive for all practical purposes.

      Seriously, a case sensitive filesystem with a shim to make it case insensitive is *drumroll* case insensitive!

      In other words, your arguments did you no favors.

      That said, hard-coding paths is sloppy, but forgivable considering their background and the very small subset of users it affects.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    17. Re:Yeah by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You were speaking from the developer level when you were talking about case insensitivity.

      And developers using file access APIs in Windows can get case sensitive behavior. It's just a single FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS flag to CreateFile and friends. It's actually easier to do that in Windows because it doesn't require a reformat and reinstall.

      I cannot see how you can honestly say that case insensitivity is the exception and not the rule when 99% of people in the world use a filesystem that is case insensitive for all practical purposes.

      Case-insensitive volume formats are only common if you're talking about hard-drive-based filesystems for consumer use. As soon as you move beyond that market into anything remotely enterprise-y (e.g. home directories on any NFS server, some SMB servers, some AFP servers, etc.), there's a very real chance that you're getting into case sensitivity territory. As soon as you talk about the world of servers, it's almost a given.

      Further, every CD-ROM (except the base ISO-9660, which is almost useless), every DVD, every Blu-Ray disc, a sizable percentage of cell phones, and lots of embedded systems use a case-sensitive filesystem. Want that game to work when run from optical media? You'd better work with case-sensitive volumes. Want to port it to iPhone? It had better work with case-sensitive volumes. Want to be able to fetch files over the Internet? Yup. Case usually matters. And so on.

      The average home has one hard drive, thirty or forty DVDs. When viewed in a broader sense (not limited to local hard-drive filesystems), case sensitivity is the norm, and case insensitivity is the exception. Case-sensitive volumes likely outnumber case-insensitive volumes by several orders of magnitude.

      That said, I wasn't talking about the number of instances of any given filesystem when I referred to case insensitivity being in the minority but rather that *recent* filesystems are almost *universally* case sensitive. That's a pretty strong indication that technology is moving towards case sensitivity, not away from it. Thus, designing software that doesn't take this into account is very shortsighted, and is likely to be costly in the long run.

      Put another way, if you want to talk about total number of instances of a filesystem, ignoring DVDs and CDs, the most popular filesystem that a home user will encounter (by a large margin) is non-long-filename FAT16 on flash cards. That doesn't mean it's acceptable for a photo viewer application to barf when it sees a filename that's more than eight characters long, even though 99.999% of them won't be.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    18. Re:Yeah by grumbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A user certainly should not have to care, or even deal, with case-sensitivity.

      At which point does the user ever have to care about case-sensitivity? You can search case-insensitive on a case-sensitive file system without any issue and when you want to open a file, you just click an icon anyway. It really doesn't make a difference for the average user. The only area that I have seen where it does make a difference is when it comes to programming, people on Windows often end up messing up their #include directives with incorrect case, which then causes trouble on Unix systems, but its easily fixable.

      They certainly won't understand the difference between ThisFile.TXT and thisfile.txt. If they see both, they'll wonder why they have two copies of the same file.

      While having .TXT mixed with .txt is annoying, as it looks ugly and inconsistent, case-insensitivity doesn't solve that, quite the opposite, it caused it in the first place. If everything would be case-sensitive app developers would simply take a bit more care to write proper file extension instead of mixing case. About it causing confusion, I completly disagree. I would say the exact opposite is true: Not allowing files with the same name is a case of low-level implementation details leaking into the users space and thus causing confusion. In a modern GUI the files "Bob.txt" and "Bob.txt" could be clearly differentiated by not only being two separate icons, but also having different file size, content, thumbnails and other meta data. My Blog can handle just fine having two articles with the same title, why can't my file system? This of course might cause a little trouble for text based interfaces, as the filename is the unique identifier of the file, unlike in a GUI where you could have a hidden unique id for the file, but its not an unsolvable problem.

  2. Open like a Mac? by _pi-away · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, my irony detector is overloading.

    --

    "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
  3. Not necessarily ironic by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    C'mon. It may be a legitimate comparison on the continuum of platform comparision.

    "Sony, you've made the PS3 so closed and restrictive that you make the Mac look like Richard Stallman's promised land."

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:Not necessarily ironic by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Informative

      That and the Mac is pretty open. Darwin is open, and it's not restricted like an iPod/iPad or such. It's more open in many ways than Windows, though closed in some others (locked to apple hardware).

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:Not necessarily ironic by beelsebob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's open in many more ways than that... e.g. Apple wrote a BSD'd compiler for C like languages (clang) which for C and objective-c beats the pants of gcc in almost every way, and is getting *damn close* on the C++ front.

    3. Re:Not necessarily ironic by dingen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because OS X isn't open source. Darwin is though and it runs fine on any IBM PC clone.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    4. Re:Not necessarily ironic by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 2, Informative

      If OS X is open source

      Not "if," OSX has a lot of open source in it. You can download the kernel (named Darwin) and some utilities from their open source website. Another good web page with Apple's open source software information is http://www.apple.com/opensource/ . There you can see what project is being used by the different Apple applications or utilities.

      how come nobody's made some modifications to not check for Apple's BIOS

      Mac's do not use BIOS, they use EFI.

      and then recompiled it to run on an IBM PC Clone?

      There are several websites out there with info and utilities to get OS X running on almost any PC out there (drivers can be a hassle tho). Apple has not done much to stop them, except of course of Psystar that was actually trying to run a business around cloning Macs. Try this one, I think it should send you in the right direction http://www.osx86project.org/

    5. Re:Not necessarily ironic by macshit · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's open in many more ways than that... e.g. Apple wrote a BSD'd compiler for C like languages (clang) which for C and objective-c beats the pants of gcc in almost every way, and is getting *damn close* on the C++ front.

      Er, clang/llvm have some grand goals, but so far, they very clearly don't "beat the pants off gcc in almost every way."

      gcc optimizes better, has been ported far more widely, supports many more languages (and of course in cases like C++, is a much more complete compiler -- clang C++ support is still pretty basic), and of course is much more mature. One of clang/llvm's widely touted advantages -- faster compilation -- is shrinking as the compiler grows. clang/llvm's optimization will improve with time, but on the other hand, so will gcc's (the gcc devs are not just sitting around twiddling their thumbs).

      Here's a recent comparison of gcc 4.5 and llvm 2.7: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg00948.html

      The main advantages of clang/llvm basically seem to be (1) more modular design, which hopefully makes them easier to work on, and makes them more suitable for non-traditional roles like run-time compilation of graphics shaders etc, and (2) the BSD license, which allows companies to make proprietary extensions to them, and which seems to be the main reason apple is backing them.

      Clang/llvm seem to be a nice modern design, and will no doubt provide some good competition for gcc in the future, but they're not quite there yet.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    6. Re:Not necessarily ironic by Narishma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It still doesn't make much sense. They support the Xbox 360 which is as closed as, or even more closed than the PS3.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
  4. Re:Well... by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

    To be fair, the developer tools on the Mac are free, unlike Microsoft's developer tools...

    The Express Editions of Visual Studio are pretty darn usable; they're free. While what you said is not technically incorrect, it's also not being entirely honest IMO.

  5. Like a Mac. A Big Mac? by zardozap · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Geez, Newell needs to stop hitting the burgers. Who has a neck like that? Seriously dude.

    1. Re:Like a Mac. A Big Mac? by jd2112 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Big Mac may be the worlds first open source burger. For those of you not old enough to remember, their slogan used to be "Two all beef patties, special sauce(*), lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun" which can be considered the "source code" of the burger. (*) since they never revealed the source to the special sauce the code cannot completely compile as published

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  6. His assesment is accurate... by Wovel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OSX is the most open operating system Steam currently delivers software for. OSX is the most open of the operating systems with a measurable desktop market share. OSX is the most open platform that runs Microsoft Windows. I could make up about 100 other items. The most important item however is this:

    OSX is the most open platform any commercial software companies are writing consumer applications for.

    1. Re:His assesment is accurate... by Wovel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Really, where did you buy it? How much did it cost.. Choosing to do a free release of an old game on alternate platform as an experiment is not quite the same thing...It would be like if Steam had only ported portal to OSX and gave it away. Actually know, it does not even quite reach that level.

    2. Re:His assesment is accurate... by dingen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In all fairness, a Linux client of Steam is on its way.

      --
      Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
    3. Re:His assesment is accurate... by Ixokai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How do you get to this? How conceivably is OSX more closed then Windows?

      Its extensively documented, the full suite of development tools needed to make software on it are provided for free by the vendor, and its *really* cheap to get beta/pre-releases to test against -- seriously, have you *seen* a MSDN license, vs the $99 Apple charges? (Yes, I'm aware of the Express editions MS has been offering)

      Yes, the iPhone OS is closed as all hell. Mac != iPhone, even though they share a lot in common.

      As a *platform*, the Mac is pretty open. Open as in there are very little barriers for entry for developers. Anyone can write software it, there's no licensing you need to get your software on it, all the tools are available to anyone, with everything documented well.

      Windows, by comparison, is more open then iPhone OS, certainly... and of late its documentation is pretty good. But for the fully enabled toolchain and documentation set and access to beta-versions and everything is hundreds to thousands of dollars.

    4. Re:His assesment is accurate... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes they did. Why else would they make them?

      They got my money only because they made them.
      ID has been selling commercial games on linux for a long time kiddo.

  7. Re:Apple isn't really open source. by dingen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Look at the iPhone.

    No, for a change, don't look at the iPhone. Look at what the man in the article is actually talking about: Mac OS X. Can you name one platform that is more open and runs commercial games?

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  8. Re:How is a Mac open? by Wovel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am fairly certain I can come up with the source for a lot more of OSX than you could for Windows 7...

  9. Re:How is a Mac open? by dingen · · Score: 4, Informative

    Open like a Mac? What does that mean? Its not like Apple is anymore open than MS is

    Actually, Apple is a lot more open than MS is.

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  10. Re:word association by Fross · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's another month for Episode 3.

    Thanks a lot buddy! >:|

  11. Mac!=iPhone/iPad by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    Judging by the sheer number of responses so far, many people here can't tell the different between iPhone/iPad and Mac. They are both made by Apple. Macs run OS X which is based on BSD. Mac OS X is composed of Darwin sub-system, Aqua GUI, and other libraries. Darwin is open source and is available under a BSD type license. Aqua is proprietary. Mac OS X runs on a lot of open source software such as BIND, bash, openSSH, etc. The Mac versions are available freely at http://www.opensource.apple.com/

    The iPhone/iPad uses a variant of OS X. It is not open source and the release of Apps is tightly controlled. Developers are free to release to their own devices but must abide by Apple guidelines if they want to publish in the Apple Store.

    Valve is referring to Macs not iPhone/iPad.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Re:How is a Mac open? by dingen · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's not just Unix-parts that are open sourced by Apple. There's a lot more.

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  13. Re:Well... by Kwami · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless you want to compile native 64-bit binaries. In that case, Visual Studio Express Edition won't be sufficient.

  14. Re:360 by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Xbox 360 is more open than PLAYSTATION 3. Microsoft has the XNA Creators Club and Xbox Live Indie Games, a business model that is (coincidentally?) similar to Apple's later iPhone developer program and App Store. True, retail games and major-label download games aren't XNA, but does Sony have any counterpart to XNA?

  15. Gabe blowing smoke again by Gizzmonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember the horrible Orange Box port for PS3? That was farmed out to EA, but it was still with Valve's approval. It reflected poorly on Valve, and Newell's been in PS3-bashing mode ever since then. Rather than admit that his company is too small to devote the resources to develop on PS3, he blusters about how crappy it is.

      No, Gabe, other developers have been developing on PS3 for years and there are some great games for it. You already develop for Xbox 360, another platform that forces you to have the developer's blessing before you can code. Whining about openness doesn't make sense at this point. Feel free to skip PS3 development. Just don't blame the PS3 for your own company's shortcomings.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
  16. I see the Windows fanboi mods are out in force by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no possible way that parent post deserves a troll mod, except in Windows-fanboi land. What he says is exactly right: in certain ways -- specifically, code availability, which is exactly the sense in which "open" is most often used on Slashdot -- the Mac is indeed more open than Windows. As another poster points out, hardware-wise Windows is more open, but think about the subject of the story! Sony isn't going to start writing OSs for other companies' game systems any time soon, but more information about the PS3 would help draw developers to the platform. The type of "openness" which Valve is calling on Sony to practice with regards to the PS3 is exactly the type of openness Apple practices with OS X, not that which Microsoft practices with Windows.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  17. Poor guy... by northernfrights · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He has a valid point when you read the context (comparing mac vs. gamecube in terms of game distribution). But a headline like that on a forum like this == serious flamebait.

  18. Re:360 by Narishma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    XNA doesn't matter to developers like Valve, so the parent's point still stands. The Xbox 360 is as closed as the PS3. The only reason they support it is that porting their games to it is very easy since it uses the same technologies as Windows.

    --
    Mada mada dane.
  19. Waaah! It's a whine from Gabe Newell by CronoCloud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This sounds to me like a "waaah" whine:

    "Waaaah, we're an x86/Microsoft/DirectX platform dev house we don't want to learn any other architectures or tools."
    "Waaah, we want to sell our games via OUR online distribution, not the one Sony has set up for the PS3"
    "But we want to make money selling games for the PS3 so Sony should do what we want...waaaah"

    Sony is probably thinking:

    "Fuck you, Newell, you farmed out the Orange Box port to EA instead of some competent house like Gearbox."
    "The PS3 is our sandbox, our rules, it's the same way with the Microsoft's Xbox."
    "Tying yourself to Microsoft like you have is a mistake. You can make games without Microsoft Tools and on non-microsoft platforms...if you're not a lazy x86 dev house."
    "If the Mac is so open, why did it take you 12 years to release the original Half Life for the platform, Considering that the PS2 version came out in 2001?"
    "How long did it take you to do Half-Life 2...six years? Lazy x86/Windows devs! A sequel should only take 2 years or less. How many Final Fantasy games did Square release between 1998 and 2006? Lets see VIII, IX, X, X-2, XI, and XII."

    I've noticed a few other Windows centric game houses (like Blizzard, and Wild-Tangent) that talk the same way.
    abba

  20. Re:How is a Mac open? by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What, like OpenGL? You might need that for video games. Dunno, do video games need to draw things on the screen?

    What about sound? OpenAL? Might need that perhaps.

    What about writing the Steam app itself. Well, you might need Objective C and C, and compile it with GCC in Xcode. All so proprietary! Whatever to do!

    You might also need to be able to write to the Mac filesystem - most use HFS+, because that's all proprietary and closed.... no wait.

    Sorry, what parts do Valve need that are Apple-only and proprietary. Specifics please.

  21. Re:You have a strange definition of open by not-my-real-name · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's really very simple. Apple is a hardware company that also makes software. Microsoft is a software company that also makes hardware.

    Apple doesn't care what software you run on a Mac. Microsoft doesn't care what computer you run Windows on.

    Apple wants you to buy a Mac. Microsoft wants you to buy Windows.

    --
    un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
  22. You must have dropped a rod then by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry, my irony detector is overloading.

    You might want to look around for a large ferrous source then, because it's not the Mac setting it off. The Mac is a very open platform. The iPhone is a rather closed platform. Unlike other vendors, you get choice in what degree of openness you prefer when choosing platforms to purchase.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley