Macs these days consist almost completely of standard PC hardware (and are, in fact, built by contract PC manufacturers in the far east). And it is very unlikely that Apple develops all its drivers from scratch.
Actually, I'm quite sure Apple designs large parts of the motherboard itself. Not that it matters as far as my point is concerned: Apple develops the hardware as well as the software. That they buy parts of the hardware from third parties doesn't change this. Microsoft has no interest to and/or can't support all the chips and cards inside your computer. Red Hat usually doesn't know what computer you run their system on. Apple has an interest to support its own hardware, and they have the capability to do so as they know what's inside your computer. If you go into the next store and buy Mac OS X Tiger, you know it'll support all the weird features your PowerBook has. If Dell were to introduce light sensors into its notebooks, it would have to include its own driver with its computers. The next time you wipe the hard drive and install a copy of Windows you bought in a store, the feature is gone. Not so on the Mac.
Apple is able to roll out huge changes across the board (like a switch to a different processor architecture) without the user even noticing. That's because they control both hard- and software.
My own experience with Apple products has been generally to other name-brand PC manufacturers, no better and no worse.
I study computer science. About half of my pals own PC notebooks running Linux and/or Windows. Simple things like support for the particular wireless card inside those notebooks is a constant problem, and some of my pals (mostly those running Linux) have actually adopted to this by always using ethernet for Internet access, even though they own wifi cards. For Mac users, it's a non-issue.
It's not a statistic, it's just my own experience which matches what you logically would expect, given Apple's business model of making "the whole widget".
It's not quite the same. Using Macs, you get both your hardware, your OS and many applications from the same vendor.
There are several vendors of Linux machines that give you the hardware, software, expansion hardware, and software upgrades all from a single source. And they work.
Maybe I should have been more specific. It's developed by the same entity. They can roll out changes and new hardware very easily with both updated and integrated hard- and software.
You know your wifi-card is going to work with your updated OS without you having to find an upgrade for the driver. You know your internal bluetooth is going to work. You know the OS will support your keyboard's backlight or your PowerBook's motion sensor out of the box.
All the stupid people who only care about graphics will keep their damn dirty ape-paws off my Revolution.
Heh, good point. Also:
Since people who only care about graphics won't buy Revolutions, the games that will appear for the Cube will be the ones which have to survive on gameplay alone. In other words, the good ones.
However, I myself have had problems with sound in linux (...) and got sound working in all apps installed within a few days of switching.
I had worked out everything he had worked out in less than two days of having a linux desktop.
It took you a few days to get sound working correctly, and you think this is okay? It took you two days to get your Linux desktop set up, and you think this is okay?
Frankly, I'm not quite sure how people can defend Linux in this regard. Don't get me wrong, Linux is awesome. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many problems with it. Most problems may not be big, but the little problems add up. Now, if you're running Linux as a server, you may not care that some of this stuff doesn't work or is hard to set up. If you're an admin or a programmer, you may not care that you have to fiddle with this stuff for a few days just to get sound working properly. You may even enjoy it or actually make a living thanks to this very fact.
However, most people don't enjoy this, and they do care. The time you spend setting up audio is time you spend not listening to music, not getting any actual work done, not watching movies, not playing games. Say what you want about Apple, but in this regard, Mac OS X beats Linux. All those little things are simply not an issue if you have a Mac.
I can't help feeling that any decent programmer would have been able to overcome the same little roadhumps on the way without so much as a sigh.
Sure. But why should he if he doesn't have to? Why shouldn't he doing what he enjoys (such as actually coding his apps) instead of tinkering with the system, getting basic stuff to work?
True, Macs work best with Apple hardware... which makes sense, since that means they've been validated to work together from day one.
And the same is true for Linux and Windows: buy hardware that is supported by, and tested with, the OS, and you are going to be fine on any OS. Macintosh is no better than Linux in this regard.
It's not quite the same. Using Macs, you get both your hardware, your OS and many applications from the same vendor. If you own a Mac, chances are the OS you buy and use has been tested with your very hardware configuration. You know your wifi-card is going to work with your updated OS without you having to find an upgrade for the driver. You know your internal bluetooth is going to work. You know the OS will support your keyboard's backlight or your PowerBook's motion sensor out of the box.
There's no custom hardware that needs special support. Every piece of hardware a Mac contains when you buy it just works without you having to find drivers, even if you format your disk and install the OS from scratch.
Open source UNIX-alikes already have a larger market share than Macintosh.
Well, d'oh. Darwin (which is part of each shipped copy of Mac OS X) is an open-source Unix-alike. Hence, the market share of open-source Unix-alikes is per definition larger than the market share of Mac OS X if there's even one person running Linux. And there are probably way more than that:-)
Let's assume that the whole thing is legit. What are the pros and cons of this decision?
Pros:
The Revolution can achieve better graphics using lesser hardware than the other two consoles. It needs less memory since, for example, textures can have a lower resolution, so the console itself will be cheaper to manufacture.
Development will be cheaper, although I guess the difference won't be vast. And if you have games appearing on all consoles, you will have to spend the money either way, but Revolution version will look worse.
Also, most people won't benefit from HD resolution anyway. I'm living in europe, and I don't know even one single person with an HD TV. Most people who have better equipment have bought 800x600 beamers, and the current cube looks simply gorgeous on these. If this generation lasts for 5 years, then I would assume that at the end of the generation, there will still be a majority of people without HD TVs.
Cons:
Game mags will report that Revolution versions of games look worse than the versions for the other two consoles. That it won't make a difference for most consumers won't matter, the Revo will look bad next to the other two.
Sales clerks will try to sell the other two consoles to people as the commission on those will be higher, and they will have one more checkbox to show that the Revolution is worse than the other two consoles.
For people with HD TVs, the Revolution actually will look worse than the other two.
Technically, it might be the right choice at this time, but it could hurt Nintendo.
In human generated levels, you're playing more against the designer than the game. (...) if the designer uses the same tricks over and over, or uses strategies that are difficult to understand, then this can become boring real fast.
On the other hand, in a randomly or heuristicly generated level, you're playing against Chaos.
That's an interesting point, but I would say that even if the level is randomly generated, you're generally going to find the same kind of repetition that human designers introduce. Maybe even more so, since an application is (usually, depending on algorithm and human) less complicated and more predictable than a human being.
Having said that, I agree that in some kinds of games, random levels are better. Tetris, for example, would probably be kind of boring if you got the same sequence of stones each time you play it. On the other hand, that would mean that somebody thought it through, and there would always be a way to remove those blasted rows.
In general, if you're playing in humanly created levels, it's your fault if you lose. If you're playing in a random level, it might be your fault, but it might be that the level was simply too hard (or even unbeatable), too.
To me, this about sums up the reasons why auto-generated levels are most often useless. Life's not fair, but I'm playing games to avoid the unfairness of life, not to experience even more of it.
Levels should be designed by humans who can anticipate how a game will play out. Otherwise, games become more luck than anything else, which ultimately is often bothersome, annyoing and discouraging.
If anything, Spotlight has encouraged me to introduce more hierarchy into my file organization scheme. Before Tiger, I tended to avoid deep hierarchies, because it takes time to dig through several folders to get to a file. It was easier to just throw everything into the same folder, open that folder and then type the first few letters of the file you're looking for.
Using Spotlight, I can do that without having everything inside the same folder.
I organize files hierarchically, but I tend to open them using Spotlight.
I think this list is actually surprisingly fair. The only thing which seems a bit absurd is awarding "best hardware" to the PS3. Basically, they awarded "best hardware" to a pre-rendered movie. Way to go, dudes. I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but even I think that Microsoft was more or less the only candidate for "best hardware".
Other than that, EA's Madden NFL 06 got "Best Sports Game". Frankly, I can't quite see why. Maybe it's an american thing, or maybe all other sports games sucked so badly that only Madden was an option, but really, couldn't they find anything else which was at least a bit more interesting?
We Love Katamari got "Best Puzzle/Trivia/Parlor Game". It probably deserved to get a price, but is Katamari really a puzzle game? That seems a bit weird.
There are very few magazines addressing their needs
Maybe that's because these people won't buy magazines. They aren't really that dedicated to their games, and I guess surfing the net and looking for new games is part of the challenge.
I'd say there are no mags for casual gamers because only hardcore gamers care enough to buy these mags.
Now's a good time to start Mac programming. A few things to keep in mind here:
Apple will make pretty damn sure that Windows apps won't run out of the box on Macs. Even X11 is an optional install on Macs, and any Windows compatibility layer won't even be that. People will have to buy Virtual PC, they will have to install WINE. Windows apps will never "just run" on a Mac.
Mac users won't accept Windows apps if there's any chance to avoid them. They didn't buy Office 6 because it was too windows-y. They don't run Open Office because it's too ugly. If it's a niche thing and there is no native alternative, they might accept having to run a Windows app. Otherwise, not.
There's a good chance that a lot of major applications - especially those still running in CodeWarrior - won't be ready when the first MacIntel is. So those apps will only run slowly, if at all. This is a huge chance to launch new applications that will run natively. This is your chance to claim your place in the Mac market.
This situation isn't like the OS/2 situation at all. You can't and will never be able to just run Windows apps on a Mac, and if you install all the necessary things to run them, they will still look out of place, and people will still avoid them.
For consumers, nothing will change. In the best case, they won't even notice the Intel chip, except for the fact that some of their applications will become slower.
Mac users will not stop buying Mac applications because the chips in their Computer has changed.
I couldn't agree more. Many of the newer games look amazing, but they aren't pretty. They look real, but they don't look nice. I love my GBA for its hand-drawn sprites, and I'm very glad that Nintendo won't simply let the GBA die now that the DS is out. I remember that about 10 years ago, game magazines would print graphic ressources of games. One magazine had all sprites from Turrican, a shooter for the Amiga. There were about 20 hand-drawn graphics that showed every frame of the main guy while running. Nowadays, people don't care anymore. Frankly, I can't even tell all those WWII-Games apart. They all look the same.
I'm not saying that you can't do pretty graphics in 3D. The Wind Waker had some stunningly beautiful graphics. I simply think the mainstream game market doesn't care anymore. As long as it looks realistic, it's a go.
Before imagining all kinds of things into Nintendo's next console, let's think about the economics of this for a second:
Nintendo has to provide the infrastructure for a downloading service
Nintendo has to somehow make sure no harmful software can be downloaded
That means that Nintendo will have to control/license everything available for download. They're probably not going to give the development kits away for free simply to make sure they won't have to review crap from wannabe-programmers who want to make a quick buck with their buggy Pac-Man-clone which, aside from being crappy, probably will get Nintendo sued by Namco.
Even if Nintendo allows independent developers to use its online service for distributing and selling software, it won't be the way most people expect it to be.
I think one of the problems of sex in video games is the uncanny valley. The beach volley games like DOA look kinda spooky in my opinion, and not really sexy. Feel the Magic XX/XY worked around this problem successfully by having a very stylized female. Basically, they leave it to your imagination, and it works. Opening her top actually is kinda sexy.
Still, I think in many games, sex simply has no place. Mario and Peach would be very uncomfortable, and having the Halo guy get it on would really pull you out of the game.
Either way, sex can't really be used to sell games (BMX XXX anyone?), because you don't have to play games to see nude people. You get that on the Internet for free, without having to play a crappy game. The game needs to be good in the first place to make you play it. Sex can possibly enhance a good game, but it can't make a good game.
I dont see why nintendo and Sega dont join forces at this point!! with their combined intellectual properties they could make a killing!!!
Maybe because Sega is pretty much killing itself by making crappy games that nobody wants to buy, while Nintendo is making huge profits while owning one of the two console markets?
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is a hardware company which uses software to differentiate their hardware from other vendor's hardware.
Why?
No, I'm serious. Why? They've changed the chip that runs their computers. Nothing else. There's no effect on their business model.
Actually, I'm quite sure Apple designs large parts of the motherboard itself. Not that it matters as far as my point is concerned: Apple develops the hardware as well as the software. That they buy parts of the hardware from third parties doesn't change this. Microsoft has no interest to and/or can't support all the chips and cards inside your computer. Red Hat usually doesn't know what computer you run their system on. Apple has an interest to support its own hardware, and they have the capability to do so as they know what's inside your computer. If you go into the next store and buy Mac OS X Tiger, you know it'll support all the weird features your PowerBook has. If Dell were to introduce light sensors into its notebooks, it would have to include its own driver with its computers. The next time you wipe the hard drive and install a copy of Windows you bought in a store, the feature is gone. Not so on the Mac.
Apple is able to roll out huge changes across the board (like a switch to a different processor architecture) without the user even noticing. That's because they control both hard- and software.
I study computer science. About half of my pals own PC notebooks running Linux and/or Windows. Simple things like support for the particular wireless card inside those notebooks is a constant problem, and some of my pals (mostly those running Linux) have actually adopted to this by always using ethernet for Internet access, even though they own wifi cards. For Mac users, it's a non-issue.
It's not a statistic, it's just my own experience which matches what you logically would expect, given Apple's business model of making "the whole widget".
Maybe I should have been more specific. It's developed by the same entity. They can roll out changes and new hardware very easily with both updated and integrated hard- and software.
It's my experience, too.
Heh, good point. Also:
It took you a few days to get sound working correctly, and you think this is okay? It took you two days to get your Linux desktop set up, and you think this is okay?
Frankly, I'm not quite sure how people can defend Linux in this regard. Don't get me wrong, Linux is awesome. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many problems with it. Most problems may not be big, but the little problems add up. Now, if you're running Linux as a server, you may not care that some of this stuff doesn't work or is hard to set up. If you're an admin or a programmer, you may not care that you have to fiddle with this stuff for a few days just to get sound working properly. You may even enjoy it or actually make a living thanks to this very fact.
However, most people don't enjoy this, and they do care. The time you spend setting up audio is time you spend not listening to music, not getting any actual work done, not watching movies, not playing games. Say what you want about Apple, but in this regard, Mac OS X beats Linux. All those little things are simply not an issue if you have a Mac.
Sure. But why should he if he doesn't have to? Why shouldn't he doing what he enjoys (such as actually coding his apps) instead of tinkering with the system, getting basic stuff to work?
It's not quite the same. Using Macs, you get both your hardware, your OS and many applications from the same vendor. If you own a Mac, chances are the OS you buy and use has been tested with your very hardware configuration. You know your wifi-card is going to work with your updated OS without you having to find an upgrade for the driver. You know your internal bluetooth is going to work. You know the OS will support your keyboard's backlight or your PowerBook's motion sensor out of the box.
There's no custom hardware that needs special support. Every piece of hardware a Mac contains when you buy it just works without you having to find drivers, even if you format your disk and install the OS from scratch.
Well, d'oh. Darwin (which is part of each shipped copy of Mac OS X) is an open-source Unix-alike. Hence, the market share of open-source Unix-alikes is per definition larger than the market share of Mac OS X if there's even one person running Linux. And there are probably way more than that :-)
Let's assume that the whole thing is legit. What are the pros and cons of this decision?
Pros:
Cons:
Technically, it might be the right choice at this time, but it could hurt Nintendo.
True, but I suspect that secretly (or maybe even not-so-secretly), they actually want to be punished by unfair levels :-D
That's an interesting point, but I would say that even if the level is randomly generated, you're generally going to find the same kind of repetition that human designers introduce. Maybe even more so, since an application is (usually, depending on algorithm and human) less complicated and more predictable than a human being.
Having said that, I agree that in some kinds of games, random levels are better. Tetris, for example, would probably be kind of boring if you got the same sequence of stones each time you play it. On the other hand, that would mean that somebody thought it through, and there would always be a way to remove those blasted rows.
In general, if you're playing in humanly created levels, it's your fault if you lose. If you're playing in a random level, it might be your fault, but it might be that the level was simply too hard (or even unbeatable), too.
To me, this about sums up the reasons why auto-generated levels are most often useless. Life's not fair, but I'm playing games to avoid the unfairness of life, not to experience even more of it.
Levels should be designed by humans who can anticipate how a game will play out. Otherwise, games become more luck than anything else, which ultimately is often bothersome, annyoing and discouraging.
If anything, Spotlight has encouraged me to introduce more hierarchy into my file organization scheme. Before Tiger, I tended to avoid deep hierarchies, because it takes time to dig through several folders to get to a file. It was easier to just throw everything into the same folder, open that folder and then type the first few letters of the file you're looking for.
Using Spotlight, I can do that without having everything inside the same folder.
I organize files hierarchically, but I tend to open them using Spotlight.
I think this list is actually surprisingly fair. The only thing which seems a bit absurd is awarding "best hardware" to the PS3. Basically, they awarded "best hardware" to a pre-rendered movie. Way to go, dudes. I'm a Nintendo fanboy, but even I think that Microsoft was more or less the only candidate for "best hardware".
Other than that, EA's Madden NFL 06 got "Best Sports Game". Frankly, I can't quite see why. Maybe it's an american thing, or maybe all other sports games sucked so badly that only Madden was an option, but really, couldn't they find anything else which was at least a bit more interesting?
We Love Katamari got "Best Puzzle/Trivia/Parlor Game". It probably deserved to get a price, but is Katamari really a puzzle game? That seems a bit weird.
Maybe that's because these people won't buy magazines. They aren't really that dedicated to their games, and I guess surfing the net and looking for new games is part of the challenge.
I'd say there are no mags for casual gamers because only hardcore gamers care enough to buy these mags.
Now's a good time to start Mac programming. A few things to keep in mind here:
This situation isn't like the OS/2 situation at all. You can't and will never be able to just run Windows apps on a Mac, and if you install all the necessary things to run them, they will still look out of place, and people will still avoid them.
For consumers, nothing will change. In the best case, they won't even notice the Intel chip, except for the fact that some of their applications will become slower.
Mac users will not stop buying Mac applications because the chips in their Computer has changed.
I couldn't agree more. Many of the newer games look amazing, but they aren't pretty. They look real, but they don't look nice. I love my GBA for its hand-drawn sprites, and I'm very glad that Nintendo won't simply let the GBA die now that the DS is out. I remember that about 10 years ago, game magazines would print graphic ressources of games. One magazine had all sprites from Turrican, a shooter for the Amiga. There were about 20 hand-drawn graphics that showed every frame of the main guy while running. Nowadays, people don't care anymore. Frankly, I can't even tell all those WWII-Games apart. They all look the same.
I'm not saying that you can't do pretty graphics in 3D. The Wind Waker had some stunningly beautiful graphics. I simply think the mainstream game market doesn't care anymore. As long as it looks realistic, it's a go.
Actually, that's exactly what Apple is doing :-)
Before imagining all kinds of things into Nintendo's next console, let's think about the economics of this for a second:
That means that Nintendo will have to control/license everything available for download. They're probably not going to give the development kits away for free simply to make sure they won't have to review crap from wannabe-programmers who want to make a quick buck with their buggy Pac-Man-clone which, aside from being crappy, probably will get Nintendo sued by Namco.
Even if Nintendo allows independent developers to use its online service for distributing and selling software, it won't be the way most people expect it to be.
I think one of the problems of sex in video games is the uncanny valley. The beach volley games like DOA look kinda spooky in my opinion, and not really sexy. Feel the Magic XX/XY worked around this problem successfully by having a very stylized female. Basically, they leave it to your imagination, and it works. Opening her top actually is kinda sexy.
Still, I think in many games, sex simply has no place. Mario and Peach would be very uncomfortable, and having the Halo guy get it on would really pull you out of the game.
Either way, sex can't really be used to sell games (BMX XXX anyone?), because you don't have to play games to see nude people. You get that on the Internet for free, without having to play a crappy game. The game needs to be good in the first place to make you play it. Sex can possibly enhance a good game, but it can't make a good game.
Maybe because Sega is pretty much killing itself by making crappy games that nobody wants to buy, while Nintendo is making huge profits while owning one of the two console markets?