Why Apple Should Port Games 848
DanTheMan writes "For every great game there is for Mac OS X, there are at least two for Windows. It's sad, but it's a fact. This article proposes a solution, and it's for Apple to port games. By the way, since the XBox 2 will use the PowerPC G5, it shouldn't be that difficult to port future XBox games to the Power Mac G5 and the iMac, both of which are 64-bit now. Would you buy a Mac if you could play Counterstrike Source and Half-Life 2? What other games are missing from Mac OS X?"
Re:No because... (Score:5, Interesting)
I tend to agree and in that same line of thought, what about Linux? Supposedly Linux now outnumbers Macs on the Desktop and the cost of Linux is even lower than Windows. With the things that x.org and friends are doing, is there some technical hurdle that opengl et al cannot compete on? It seems to me that Linux would be a better target financially as it is exhibiting growth in the market place unlike the number of Macs being used which has somewhat stagnated. Just a thought.
In the case of HL2, a port would be too much work (Score:5, Interesting)
While the HL2 leak had support for OpenGL rendering, the current version of CS: Source does not even allow you to choose that. You're probably looking at a near-total rewrite if you want to run HL2 on another OS that doesn't support MS' APIs.
Re:Wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
Feh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple may do well to provide assistance to these shops, but frankly its own resources are stretched too thin already. Why do people have this blind and absurd obsession with everything being made by Apple, anyway?
Re:if you want a gaming machine get a ps2 or xbox (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be silly. There's a lot of games that are great on a real computer but suck on a console eg most RPGs, most strategy games, most first person shooters in fact everything except platform games and fighting games.
There are two games currently I would like to see on the Mac: Rise of Nations (which is on it's way) and Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War which is a surprisingly excellent RTS (surprisingly because I find Warhammer miniatures a real turn off).
Apple won't port games. (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, not every "great game" released for Windows should come out for the Mac. Many games actually aren't that great. They just suck. Mass porting games won't help. The Windows world is big enough that somebody will buy whatever crappy game you throw out there, but the Mac world isn't.
That said, if a game is good, and the developer knows it will be good, they have two options: port it themselves or have someone else port it. That this doesn't happen more often, to me, means that the PC developer just doesn't care and isn't interested. Porting houses, depending on how they get paid, would be all too happy for more work. If they get paid by commission from the original developer, take it on. If they get paid through game sales, it's in their own best interest to only port the games they think will sell.
In order for a game to be most successful on the Mac, however, it should come out the same time the PC version does. This more than anything else is what will make the great games on the Mac work, for both the game and the Mac.
Foxtrot (Score:5, Interesting)
Port Xbox2 games to Mac? Just buy an xbox. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Still too expensive.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, despite the fact that you can get a 1.8 ghz g5 for $1500 now (screen included if you get an iMac), and a g4 for about the price of a similiarly-equipped PC, I believed in this logic too. Especially since, as a Mac owner, I had dreams of "buying a new PC" to mean "buying a new mobo and ram and recycling the other componenets from your last machine."
But I've been using a (Dell) PC at work for the past couple weeks, and let me tell you, at 2.5 ghz, it feels slower than my 1.2ghz g4. Dealing with viruses is a pain in the ass, and I have to restart at least once a day. Several things are a lot more complicated than they need to be. It takes more than a couple clicks to search for a file, and it asks me if I'm sure every time I move something to the trash. Of fucking course, I just clicked on it, didn't I? And if I did it by mistake, it's not like I can't just pull it right back out of the trash.
Don't even get me started on networking.
Someone else said Macs were like Lexuses. It's more like Macs are Honda Accords (or tricked-out Civics), and PCs are like the old Escort that your uncle gave you because it wasn't worth his time to sell. The one that you're always worried will crash.
Re:Open vs. Closed (Score:3, Interesting)
Er...it kind of undermines your argument to mention this example, since both nVidia and ATI release Mac graphics cards. And swapping one for the other is just a matter of opening up the case and doing the exchange.
We're talking G4/G5 desktops here, of course, but then you can't upgrade Windows laptops either. And while you're quite right that you can't upgrade an iMac, you can't exactly upgrade many of the Media Center set-top type. So your argument kind of falls over when you realise that both platforms come in non-upgradeable and upgradeable flavours. No real difference between them.
At what point... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No because... (Score:2, Interesting)
For other activities, the mac price isn't so bad when you are talking about paying for the asthetics. But when it comes to gaming performance, the mac has never stacked up on price/performance, even to a reasonbly close margin.
If you start talking about their laptops now, they have very competative pricing, and they really don't have the "apple tax" on those. Their 12" laptop is cheaper than any 12in dell, sony, etc.. It is almost as cheap as the generic avaratech 12in laptop at sams club.
Re:Superior? At what? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Is a Mac 'superior' at surfing the Internet? No.
Yes. With the advent of always on connections, the existance of worms began an increase the likes of which has never been seen before..."
And at the same time, nearly every IE plugin is unavailable for Mac. There are hundreds, nay, thousands of sites that don't render correctly in Safari. Standards be damned, browsing the internet on Mac can be an exercise in frustration.
"Is a Mac 'superior' at sending/recieving email? No.
Again the answer is yes. A windows PC by default would download and activate embedded programs and files in emails..."
I'm a little curious what email program does this. Outlook Express, which comes with the OS, stopped doing this years ago. You're also going under the assumption that the average computer user will use OE for Windows. As far as I know, most people use the program that came with their ISP (or a web-based client).
"Is a Mac 'superior' at performing standard office taks? (Make a spreadsheet, text document and so on.) Again, no.
This is once again another yes answer..."
I use my computer to work, and part of my work is sharing documents with others. I have noticed, many, MANY times that programs on Mac (Appleworks, Office, etc.) don't display Word/Excel/etc. documents made on a PC correctly. Again, standards be damned: I'm trying to work.
"Even non-professional and professional photo editing can be performed very adequetely on a Windows Based PC.
The key word here is adequetely. With a mac, it can be performed well. Infact, all the basic tools are included with the system, not only Photo, but video, DVD production, music production, all part of the basic tool set."
Methinks you've never been in a true production studio. I've seen very few recording studios that used exclusively Macs. Also, the DVD program built-in is paltry at best. You really need Final Cut Pro, and that's expensive as hell.
"Sure, you might see some speed increase for some photo editing tasks on a Mac, but from what I have seen, shaving 10 seconds here and there, upwards of a minute here or there, means nothing to *home* users.
You underestimate what time means to a home user. Every 2 seconds wasted searching for a feature that isn't where it's supposed to be, every minute spent deciphering an error, every 30 seconds spent doing a mindlessly repetative series of steps that should be automated is a large chunk of time, and that time adds up to frustration."
Exactly. Every moment recreating a file so that it displays correctly, every moment wasted trying to get Safari to display my checking account right, every moment deciphering a kernel panic in OS X. Different problems, same frustration.
Re:What the Mac REALLY needs... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No because... (Score:1, Interesting)
... culture-shift at apple is needed ... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the interest of fairness and disclosure, my first machine (used for school papers, etc.) was a CPM-based box, and the first machine on which I played games that I enjoyed was the Apple ][.
The reasons are:
When it comes down to it, to get past even a few of the items I've listed here, Apple would have to undergo a culture-shift. They'd have to be keen on not producing their own hardware. They'd also have to be keen on selling the OS seperately. Slashdotters love to gripe about how windows is so expensive and you end up having to buy the same OS many times over a decade. If Apple went to selll the OS seperately, they run the risk of becoming the same kind of company as MSoft -- with all the headaches and griping that comes with that territory. If you sell the OS seperately, you have to be ready to write drivers (or support that activity by others) for all of the devices that people want to have in their machines. This involves a lot more administrative and development overhead than most people (I mean game players) are aware of. Apple would also have to be prepared to run more Microsoft software on its platform than they want to. They appear to have been okay with the idea when it came to Microsoft's office suite, but there are a huge number of games that are developed under Microsoft-sponsored aegis. Assuming they're okay with the idea, will microsoft-sponsored game development firms be comfortable with having to wrestle with the overhead of the porting issues in the process of regular product development? I don't know the answer to this (the situation is, admittedly, hypothetical) but Microsoft may have the opinion that they don't want to spend money on development activity for platforms that don't benefit them directly.
It's a very interesting idea, but I think there will have to be a sea-change at Apple before it even stands the chance at becoming a reality. I'll start saving up for a Mac right now, just in case it happens.
Re:No because... (Score:3, Interesting)
The last round of drivers from ATI finally included PCIE support, so I'm able to do 3D on the X600 that came bundled with my system. It seems to be pretty snappy. UT2004 at 1600x1200 runs pretty well, though the framerate does slow down in some of the faster vehicles. Hey, what do you want from their mid-grade card?
All that aside, I attended a presentation by the CEO of Loki shortly before they went out of business. He talked about what a pain in the ass it was to get any specific application working with Linux. As an example, he talked about some flight sim they'd been contracted to help out with, and it took 'em something like 3 days to get the environment set up correctly. Now I'm pretty well used to having to beat my head against X and libraries and assorted other crap and 3 days seems pretty reasonable to me, but Joe Average User will likely not care for it. And there is the potential in all that screwing around to really hose your machine.
Of course, I'm from the ol' DOS days when we tried to squeeze another 20K out of the system so that X-Wing could even launch, and I've had some pretty miserable experiences getting games working on Windows too. Which is why, when I want to play games, I fire up the PS2.
Re:No because... (Score:1, Interesting)
I've noticed alot of IT and security people using them now.
These people are rarely rich or fashionable let alone both.
RE: switched despite the games (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that games come out for Windows first and Windows has "twice as many games" as Mac seems like a pretty flimsy reason to base a computer buying decision on. If you're THAT obsessed with games and gaming, I'd think you would just want a console or two. That's ALL they're designed for! I've seen so many POOR games on my PC, I almost prefer the fact that my Mac acts like a "filter". Nobody's going to waste the time and money/effort porting a game that wasn't any good in Windows so it can suck on the Mac too.
Yeah, all that said, there are a handful of game titles I'm really sorry to see never made it to the Mac (or looks like they won't in the future, like Half Life 2), but that's just market economics in action. When you opt for a system that has MUCH less marketshare than the dominant platform, you have to realize your software options may not be identical.....
Gamers: Gullible Consumers (Score:3, Interesting)
For the money one blows on an insane gaming rig, and constantly upgrading that setup, he/she could just buy a top of the line Mac and possibly a couple consoles along the way. Keep in mind that Mac will probably last a minimum of 5 years without any major upgrades; longer if you upgrade the GPU, CPU, and other things. I don't see my Quicksilver going anywhere any time soon.