It's a small price to pay to not be seen as monopolistic. Macs are pervasive in media circles, and any mention of stopping a unique mac version and requiring a Windows licence and virtual PC to run Office would create some pretty big ripples which may lead to bad things for them.
I doubt they'd risk being split up, especially when they have such a good core product here. I haven't seen the new version yet but I expect it's not utterly different. As long as Apple keep Carbon I can't see it being worth the risk for them to stop producing a native version.
But then we just bring in the old productivity argument.
I've really never been as productive on Linux because of the constant updates associated with the bleeding edge stuff. Even if it was stable it's still not quite as good, subtract the extra admin it takes to keep it going.
I've never been as productive on Windows because I have to use so much 3rd party software to get it functioning the way I like it Windows itself goes loopy.
I'm more than happy to pay the premium for Apple hardware to get the superior build quality and wonderful OS. YMMV, but to address the source of the thread, signalling the death of Mac hardware due to some lame emulator is kind of missing the point.
Doom 3 (X-Box): While I'm sure the PC version will be quite awesome, I was unimpressed by the X-box version. Obviously it can't look as good as the PC version, but it didn't even seem to set a high-water mark for XBox. Didn't seem very fun to play. Still, I'll reserve judgement for the final product.
It looked like they have dynamic lighting and a decent framerate, as well as the usual quality of textures.... what were you looking for? It looked mightily impressive in the videos I saw of it.
Much of the software hosted here is now big business, where in the past it was of purely academic/enthusiast interest. Linux in particular (I bet linux.iso and kernel source downloads make up a fair percentage of their bandwidth) is now firmly established and on companies' roadmaps. Why should University budgets foot the bill for distributing Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSE's software? A local mirror for student access only would seem more appropriate, with mirror.ac.uk providing mirrors of new and highly active projects.
Agreed, crappier speakers will probably favour midrange and treble frequencies, so anything that's incorrectly replaying these will produce inaccurate results.
Add to the fact that it's just been posted on slashdot, so 10,000 geeks will pick ogg as soon as they can, regardless of whether it's better or not.
1) Absolutely. Although I'm sure Rockstar probably didn't envisage this kind of rage, it is fun. This is exactly my point about the quality of the gameplay and environment being more important in GTA than the graphics. I still order a pizza, crack a beer and just put on a GTA and wander about, because there's so much fun to be had outside missions. The decision as to what point tracking of cars and people was stopped was probably taken at a sensible level due to relevance to the gameplay, and it was quickly fixed in the Xbox version when complaints were voiced. It's certainly a feature I'd like to see and assume will be in the new version, but I don't subscribe to the original posters view that it was purely because tEH cOnsOLE sUX0rS or whatever. The Xbox version certainly addressed it, it's clearly not difficult, and a sensible level has to be picked. Tracking every single character and car would be a ridiculous waste of memory and CPU in the context of the game.
2) I can't really see the point of using the mouse when there is the lock-on feature, but each to his own.:-)
Flight sims routinely have hundreds of commands, most keys even on the keyboard are massively overloaded using meta-keys like control and alt. There will never be a serious flight sim game for any console unless it ships with it's own controller offering keyboard-like amount of controls. (And yes, I realize that this has - sort of - been done before on the Xbox with that mech game.)
I used to use X-Plane on my Mac from time to time, and a basic yoke was essential, with as many obvious controls as possible, because the keyboard was little use over the menu system because it lacks the required intuitiveness. I wouldn't consider it any loss at all to just do away with it completely, in favour of a menu system operated by the d-pad, as learning the keys for functions that you might use once in a 4 hour session isn't going to happen, when menu access is easier anyway. Unfortunately, what little market there is for flight simulators is already soaked up by MS Flight Simulator and X-Plane anyway. I hate to use a word like demographic, but the average flight sim fan probably either does not own a console or would not consider it as a platform to use for flight simulation, and it's probably not worth a publishers time and risk to try and implement something otherwise - but I do not believe it in any way impossible.
In terms of the other games you mention, remember that console controllers have between eight and twelve buttons (some of which are analogue) plus two analogue and one digital direction pad, which may or may not make up for the shortcuts you use on the keyboard, just a thought. I'm not trying to argue that it's better, but it is at least an alternative. I suppose the most natural method of simulated control here would possibly be voice recognition, giving orders verbally, although a natural form of this is probably a way off.
Having said all that I do stand corrected, the mouse/keyboard interface on games is better suited in respect to controls for FPS and games with a point and click interface, which is rather unsurprisingly where that style of game proliferates. My reason for my original flamebait posting in the thread really was to take issue with the first reply to the owner of the thread, whose ivory tower attitude was that the PC as a games system was superior in every way, and the console heritage of the game in question, a GTA game, was entirely at fault for the games shortcomings (or, as he made them out as shortcomings, when they were originally just a wishlist, only one of which could perhaps be described as a shortcoming).
Flight yokes and pedals are best for flight simulators, and after that I'd then prefer an analogue pad over a keyboard/mouse anyway, a mouse isn't particularly authentic, which is half the point in simulation.
Driving simulators are best served with a wheel and pedals, but again I'd prefer analogue controls with physical centering, and analogue controls for gas and braking are also more desirable than the 'on' or 'off' of keyboard control. Neither is a good physical substitute for car controls.
For turn-based strategy it's fairly irrelevant. The only advantage in FPS is that it's more accurate to use a mouse quickly, but if timing is no longer of the essence then the advantage quickly drains away.
I must confess to never having played a real-time strategy game, but if it's a similar point and click interface to Sim City then yes, a mouse would be preferable.
I'm not really sure what else you're referring to by saying 'and on and on'. I can't really think of any genres that particularly suit a keyboard apart from old text-based adventures and MUDs;-)
Obviously I'm biased but I just don't find having to use a desk convenient, or comfortable for game playing, and I'd certainly attribute many more game types to consoles than just 'racing and platform'. Third person shooters/action, beat 'em ups, sports sims (e.g. tennis, skateboarding, soccer), RPG, traditional shoot 'em ups, and just the original and plain wacky stuff like Rez, Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin, Panzer Dragoon, Amplitude.
I haven't used a PC for games for about a year now because the only genre which I personally found it to excel at was being eroded by some clever use of semi-auto aim with console FPS games which effectively level the playing field to make the controls as effortless to use. It also has a nice side effect on realism; godlike accuracy and ridiculously fast aiming is now tempered somewhat.
No no no. One of the best things about GTA is how real and immersive the environment feels, like you're a part of it. Having decent traffic without cars disappearing behind you would take that feeling up a notch.
They don't 'disappear' at all, they're just not tracked once they leave the screen.
Silly. It doesn't take long to get used to the controls on a PC and set it up how you want it.
I prefer analogue steering and walking , which is awkward on a keyboard/mouse. I'm not disputing that you can't use a joypad on a PC, but doing that negates the time saved for switching weapons because you have to reach to the key. It's just as quick to learn what order your weapons can be used in, which is hardly difficult, seeing as there are only about 6 slots.
Multiplayer not relevant? You're just making excuses for what the consoles haven't been able to do. After network multiplayer becomes ubiquitous on consoles I'm sure it will suddenly be more 'relevant' to you:-p
Of course they're capable, the opening floodgates proves that, and of course they would be nice features, but I meant from a marketing and cost point of view, which was that there was little cost case to provide such features because the infrastructure wasn't there and there would have been little difference in sales of the games if the features had been included. Please read and at least quote properly before you incorrectly interpret and dismiss my point.
I'm not convinced by that. CD was an established media in the first place, and the PS1 was not portable. I wonder if it'll take the punishment.
Although at the price that people are estimating I wonder if it would even succeed without competition. It's too similar to the Game Gear/Lynx for comfort, in terms of price and potentially poor battery life.
Multiplayer and online aren't the same, especially console games rely on splitscreen. Splitscreen might not be the best solution, but at least it doesn't cost extra.
Exactly, I was attempting to make the case against the lack of proliferation of online console targets.
As regards GTA multiplayer, I'm sure they could build appropriate missions based around multiplayer stuff, maybe even simply having normal missions happening concurrently, in a sort of mmorpg, or perhaps players teaming up as gangs to complete certain tasks, or defend turf. Given the sheer breadth of mission types available in the single player game I don't doubt that Rockstar could create some equally gripping multiplayer missions.
1) The Xbox version improves the traffic situation somewhat, but I think it's all about relevance. The random cars you see are exactly that, just a bit of flotsam to spice up the gameplay with chases and races. Probably not worth wasting effort and CPU tracking every individual one.
2) GTA is still preferable on a joypad, it has too many instantly required moves at fingertips to make keyboard/mouse play fully worthwhile. The time taken to find the correct key outweighs any advantage in having unique keys. I find even on PC games I usually just scroll through weapons using the mouse wheel, as it's quicker.
3) Only because it hasn't been relevant. Console games are still very much single player or group oriented, cheap and cheerful throwaway fun that requires no significant investment on behalf of the consumer, so it naturally follows that console owners would be less likely to have broadband, which is an absolute requirement for proper multiplayer.
Console game manufacturers are in the business of providing good medium term fun for the single or group together, whereas PC game production is more focused on creating communities to maintain long-term interest in the titles of the company. Internet access is a given for the average PC gamer, but not so for the console player. Given the general dearth of exclusive quality titles on PC's, and the long long timespans between releases, this ability to maintain interest through expansion and online capabilities is far more important than providing decent single player action. This can easily be seen in id software titles for example.
Because of the royalties involved console games are written to tighter margins and it's unlikely that producers would allow time and money to be spent on an online multiplayer option that is not required to sell that game. This is of course now changing as Sony and Microsoft have determined that it's a promotable feature now that broadband penetration is high enough. The fact that Nintendo are sitting on the fence only proves the point.
I'm personally apalled at the graphics. This is the third iteration of the GTA3 engine. Because of the console generation, game developers don't have any room to create the almost photorealistic environments you can see in a game like Far Cry.
In my opinion, GTA is not even a particularly good example of a console being pushed to its limits graphically, so the relevance of comparing it to Far Cry (nice example of the only decent PC exclusive for months), Doom 3 and Half Life 2 is questionable. The latter two look impressive enough on the Xbox for me anyway. GTA is more about the quality of the environment, and the gameplay. Sure nicer graphics would top it off, but if they had to cut out any of the content to accomodate it (in terms of development time and deadlines) then I'll pass, thanks.
Ignoring the fact that this requires a broadband connection, an adults signature will be needed on the dotted line (I assume it's a credit agreement).
It will still need early exclusive content in order to gain the required critical mass to make developers notice it enough to provide dedicated content in the future.
I can't see any reason to sign up for this over buying a PC, it's the same price and much less flexible. By the time the subscription period is up it will be out of date, and the next gen console hardware will be here, spanking it into the middle of next week.
I can't help but think that any parent with half a brain will see it for what it is, a vastly overpriced games console. At least a PC can be used for practical purposes, and is probably cheaper too.
When I first tried OS9 on my iBook when it arrived and found it incredibly slow at actually performing the tasks I asked of it. OK so the GUI was much snappier but the trade off was actual performance. Given that I was used to KDE of the time, OS X wasn't too much burn.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt they'd risk being split up, especially when they have such a good core product here. I haven't seen the new version yet but I expect it's not utterly different. As long as Apple keep Carbon I can't see it being worth the risk for them to stop producing a native version.
Yeah! Um...(d). Something's tugging at my Memory (stick).
Neither of these films seem to realise that being that close to lava is pretty terminal.
I've really never been as productive on Linux because of the constant updates associated with the bleeding edge stuff. Even if it was stable it's still not quite as good, subtract the extra admin it takes to keep it going.
I've never been as productive on Windows because I have to use so much 3rd party software to get it functioning the way I like it Windows itself goes loopy.
I'm more than happy to pay the premium for Apple hardware to get the superior build quality and wonderful OS. YMMV, but to address the source of the thread, signalling the death of Mac hardware due to some lame emulator is kind of missing the point.
It looked like they have dynamic lighting and a decent framerate, as well as the usual quality of textures.... what were you looking for? It looked mightily impressive in the videos I saw of it.
Much of the software hosted here is now big business, where in the past it was of purely academic/enthusiast interest. Linux in particular (I bet linux .iso and kernel source downloads make up a fair percentage of their bandwidth) is now firmly established and on companies' roadmaps. Why should University budgets foot the bill for distributing Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSE's software? A local mirror for student access only would seem more appropriate, with mirror.ac.uk providing mirrors of new and highly active projects.
SCO now thrive on headlines alone. Stop talking about them and they'll go away quicker.
Yep, I noticed as soon as I'd clicked submit :(
Add to the fact that it's just been posted on slashdot, so 10,000 geeks will pick ogg as soon as they can, regardless of whether it's better or not.
2) I can't really see the point of using the mouse when there is the lock-on feature, but each to his own. :-)
In terms of the other games you mention, remember that console controllers have between eight and twelve buttons (some of which are analogue) plus two analogue and one digital direction pad, which may or may not make up for the shortcuts you use on the keyboard, just a thought. I'm not trying to argue that it's better, but it is at least an alternative. I suppose the most natural method of simulated control here would possibly be voice recognition, giving orders verbally, although a natural form of this is probably a way off.
Having said all that I do stand corrected, the mouse/keyboard interface on games is better suited in respect to controls for FPS and games with a point and click interface, which is rather unsurprisingly where that style of game proliferates. My reason for my original flamebait posting in the thread really was to take issue with the first reply to the owner of the thread, whose ivory tower attitude was that the PC as a games system was superior in every way, and the console heritage of the game in question, a GTA game, was entirely at fault for the games shortcomings (or, as he made them out as shortcomings, when they were originally just a wishlist, only one of which could perhaps be described as a shortcoming).
Driving simulators are best served with a wheel and pedals, but again I'd prefer analogue controls with physical centering, and analogue controls for gas and braking are also more desirable than the 'on' or 'off' of keyboard control. Neither is a good physical substitute for car controls.
For turn-based strategy it's fairly irrelevant. The only advantage in FPS is that it's more accurate to use a mouse quickly, but if timing is no longer of the essence then the advantage quickly drains away.
I must confess to never having played a real-time strategy game, but if it's a similar point and click interface to Sim City then yes, a mouse would be preferable.
I'm not really sure what else you're referring to by saying 'and on and on'. I can't really think of any genres that particularly suit a keyboard apart from old text-based adventures and MUDs ;-)
Obviously I'm biased but I just don't find having to use a desk convenient, or comfortable for game playing, and I'd certainly attribute many more game types to consoles than just 'racing and platform'. Third person shooters/action, beat 'em ups, sports sims (e.g. tennis, skateboarding, soccer), RPG, traditional shoot 'em ups, and just the original and plain wacky stuff like Rez, Super Monkey Ball, Pikmin, Panzer Dragoon, Amplitude.
I haven't used a PC for games for about a year now because the only genre which I personally found it to excel at was being eroded by some clever use of semi-auto aim with console FPS games which effectively level the playing field to make the controls as effortless to use. It also has a nice side effect on realism; godlike accuracy and ridiculously fast aiming is now tempered somewhat.
They don't 'disappear' at all, they're just not tracked once they leave the screen.
I prefer analogue steering and walking , which is awkward on a keyboard/mouse. I'm not disputing that you can't use a joypad on a PC, but doing that negates the time saved for switching weapons because you have to reach to the key. It's just as quick to learn what order your weapons can be used in, which is hardly difficult, seeing as there are only about 6 slots.
Of course they're capable, the opening floodgates proves that, and of course they would be nice features, but I meant from a marketing and cost point of view, which was that there was little cost case to provide such features because the infrastructure wasn't there and there would have been little difference in sales of the games if the features had been included. Please read and at least quote properly before you incorrectly interpret and dismiss my point.
It's only good for FPS, but that's OK because that's the only gametype that makes a dent on the PC anymore.
Although at the price that people are estimating I wonder if it would even succeed without competition. It's too similar to the Game Gear/Lynx for comfort, in terms of price and potentially poor battery life.
Exactly, I was attempting to make the case against the lack of proliferation of online console targets.
As regards GTA multiplayer, I'm sure they could build appropriate missions based around multiplayer stuff, maybe even simply having normal missions happening concurrently, in a sort of mmorpg, or perhaps players teaming up as gangs to complete certain tasks, or defend turf. Given the sheer breadth of mission types available in the single player game I don't doubt that Rockstar could create some equally gripping multiplayer missions.
Maybe that bit of the map isn't done yet? That was my thought, seeing as it's the same engine and it never used to have draw distance problems.
2) GTA is still preferable on a joypad, it has too many instantly required moves at fingertips to make keyboard/mouse play fully worthwhile. The time taken to find the correct key outweighs any advantage in having unique keys. I find even on PC games I usually just scroll through weapons using the mouse wheel, as it's quicker.
3) Only because it hasn't been relevant. Console games are still very much single player or group oriented, cheap and cheerful throwaway fun that requires no significant investment on behalf of the consumer, so it naturally follows that console owners would be less likely to have broadband, which is an absolute requirement for proper multiplayer.
Console game manufacturers are in the business of providing good medium term fun for the single or group together, whereas PC game production is more focused on creating communities to maintain long-term interest in the titles of the company. Internet access is a given for the average PC gamer, but not so for the console player. Given the general dearth of exclusive quality titles on PC's, and the long long timespans between releases, this ability to maintain interest through expansion and online capabilities is far more important than providing decent single player action. This can easily be seen in id software titles for example.
Because of the royalties involved console games are written to tighter margins and it's unlikely that producers would allow time and money to be spent on an online multiplayer option that is not required to sell that game. This is of course now changing as Sony and Microsoft have determined that it's a promotable feature now that broadband penetration is high enough. The fact that Nintendo are sitting on the fence only proves the point.
In my opinion, GTA is not even a particularly good example of a console being pushed to its limits graphically, so the relevance of comparing it to Far Cry (nice example of the only decent PC exclusive for months), Doom 3 and Half Life 2 is questionable. The latter two look impressive enough on the Xbox for me anyway. GTA is more about the quality of the environment, and the gameplay. Sure nicer graphics would top it off, but if they had to cut out any of the content to accomodate it (in terms of development time and deadlines) then I'll pass, thanks.
Well.... it is cheaper, about half the price if analysts are to be believed.
Doesn't it require a broadband connection in the first place?
It will still need early exclusive content in order to gain the required critical mass to make developers notice it enough to provide dedicated content in the future.
I can't see any reason to sign up for this over buying a PC, it's the same price and much less flexible. By the time the subscription period is up it will be out of date, and the next gen console hardware will be here, spanking it into the middle of next week.
I can't help but think that any parent with half a brain will see it for what it is, a vastly overpriced games console. At least a PC can be used for practical purposes, and is probably cheaper too.
In our universe that's 25%.
When I first tried OS9 on my iBook when it arrived and found it incredibly slow at actually performing the tasks I asked of it. OK so the GUI was much snappier but the trade off was actual performance. Given that I was used to KDE of the time, OS X wasn't too much burn.
Maybe you should have saved the money you spent getting Pro instead of Home and bought some more Ram?