DirectX in Mac OS X's Future?

[Nick]

With the switch to Intel based processors, is there any chance that DirectX could be seen on Mac OS X in the future? Seems that if it were possible, OpenGL would start to fade away. Probably would never disappear for good, but definitely would lose some influence in the industry.

[akb825]

DirectX already has a PPC version (look at the XBox 360 dev machines), yet you don't see it for Mac OS X on the PPC. It isn't going to happen. The whole reason for DirectX was to lock the game industry into Windows. Besides, OpenGL is better. :p (though that would be a comparison to the Direct3D portion of DirectX...)

[Fenris]

I'd say no. DirectX isn't primarily tied to x86, but rather primarily tied to Windows. Microsoft isn't going to port it over to Mac OS X anytime soon, and Apple isn't going to license it. OpenGL will still be the future. :)

[igame3d]

OpenGL will still be the future. :)

You mean the future of about 0.4% of the world games market.

Apple Macintosh Sales 2004 = 3.5 Million

GTA: Vice City 6.5 Million Units
Super Mario 64 5.8 Million
Grand Theft Auto 2 5.3 Million

I get all the way down to the number 15 of the top 40 console game sales
before I can get Apple's low annual sales numbers.

Remember these game sales are not to corporations, governments, or schools like Apple has to include in their numbers. Take just the "buy for home" crowd into consideration and their sales figures take a further nose dive.

Apple may not adopt DirectX, but it doesn't matter, 98% of the world will,
so OpenGL is not the future, its a relic from 1995 when I saw it introduced at Siggraph, back when Apple, IBM, and Motorola were talking PowerPC "is the future".

A future in a ten year envelope.

[OneSadCookie]

The PlayStation 3 uses OpenGL ES as its API. NVidia graphics cards' newest features are almost always exposed via OpenGL long before Direct3D. Every Doom III Engine licensee will be using OpenGL, and every Unreal Engine licensee (any generation) will get the ability to ship Linux and Mac OS X versions of their game using OpenGL.

To try to claim that Direct3D is more "the future" than OpenGL is simply absurd. They are simply two different alternative APIs with different pros and cons.

In Direct3D's case the major con is that you get only two platforms -- Windows and the XBox -- which is clearly a major issue for the people who frequent this board. In that context, saying that OpenGL is /our/ future seems perfectly reasonable.

I understand that you want to believe the worst about life and the world, Bill, but at least have the decency to know what you're talking about before you rant, and not to deliberately misinterpret people's statements to give you a better soap box.

[Fenris]

You mean the future of about 0.4% of the world games market.
I meant, will be the future for this community. :)

[Najdorf]

We are all dooooooomed :mad: :cry: :mad: :cry: :mad: :cry:

[AnotherJake]

With the switch to Intel based processors, is there any chance that DirectX could be seen on Mac OS X in the future?
No, no way. Uh uh. Forget it. Regardless of what M$ say publicly about their motivations for developing it, they wanted an API that *they alone* could control. Making DirectX available for the Mac is so totally not part of their business strategy. From their point of view it would be one more possible reason a potential customer might choose a Mac instead of a Windows box, which would mean a small loss of control, and more importantly a loss of a sale of Windows for them.

What surprised me a few years ago was how 90% of the entire game industry so willingly shifted to Direct3D even when it was still immature. They did so mostly because Microsoft made it, and not on its technical merits as I saw it. The reality of the situation is that MS almost unilaterally control the PC gaming industry in many ways. They have well established business tactics for strong-arming any remaining rebels into their API as well. Only the very strongest can resist the power of the Dark Side I guess. While id and Unreal may stay primarily with OpenGL until its last dying gasp, even they are feeling the pressure no doubt. The reality of the situation is that as Mac users and developers we are extremely fortunate that successful developers like id and Unreal (epic games) are out there to continue to promote OpenGL, because DirectX will NEVER be available on this platform. But make no mistake, OpenGL is doing really well on its own and won't be going away in the forseeable future.

[Dan Potter]

I dunno. There's been this whole XNA thing lately, and MS is not one giant monolithic company. There's one Bill and one Ballmer at the top, but I've heard too many stories of internal friction between the different departments. It seems possible (though unlikely) that they could bring DirectX to other platforms. Something tells me it'd be a second-class API built on top of OpenGL. But you never know, maybe Steve gets desperate for game support in the future and Apple releases a set of DX wrappers themselves... stranger things have happened.

And yeah, PS2 games aren't written with DirectX (unless there are wrappers I haven't heard of). So I'm not sure what the point is of mentioning the GTAs unless you mean PC versions.

[igame3d]

If we are going to narrow down things to "this community", then we may as well just close our eyes and walk around blind. Especially if we are pondering wether the potential of this community has any hope of growing with the processor change over.

DirectX games can just as easily be ported to Mac as OpenGL games, (http://www.coderus.com/) have the decency to know what you are talking about, Keith.

Your major con is a moot point. Especially if you have to put Linux into the picture, since you try to make a point about "this community", this is not a Linux community, and Linux currently maintains a market share less than Apple after almost ten years in the market. Its like comparing Apple's to Oranges and throwing walnuts into the comparison.

But if we want to talk linux...
I have run Linux on my Xbox, at 1/3 the cost of running it on the lowest end Mac available.

Back to games...

I can rent unlimited AAA games for Xbox (or GC or PS2 or PSP or PSOne) for $20 a month, take the other millions of people doing that, and you get a massive impact on PC/Mac sales. Compare that daily rental of AAA titles and weekly releases of AAA titles to the release of AAA titles on Mac once every eight months, and eighteen months after Its already been rented and played on PC and consoles, then compare the performance of games running on a Apple's latest equipment to much older consoles costing 1/10th the price, and the future is indeed bleak for games on Apple computers, unless Apple does something to actually make a difference.

Doom III engine and Unreal engine games will by majority reach consoles, more than the Mac. Less than one tenth of a percent of mac developers can afford those licenses, so why desperately use them as examples? I can play doom III on a three year old 750Mhz Xbox flawlessly, at least until it bores me to death, but Dual G5 owners complain of awful performance. I can play three year old Halo flawlessly on Xbox, but it plays like garbage even with all the settings down on a Mac Mini that costs three times as much, Oh and Halo and Doom III for Xbox can be rented, for less than $3 each, but each still cost nearly $40 or more on Mac.

How many more people will see this same thing and not buy any of the games ported to the Mac?

Mentioning Nvidia video cards is another empty point since only 3 of the 30 configurations Apple sells can take a video card upgrade. About 90% of all configurations come with ATI cards,

An Nvidia 6800 card from Apple for just one Mac costs as much as a Mac Mini or two Xbox, or Two PS2's with two new game purchases.

If you develop for the Mac you have to develop for the largest base of Mac users, so developing for the $400 video isn't exactly a smart move.



And yeah, PS2 games aren't written with DirectX (unless there are wrappers I haven't heard of). So I'm not sure what the point is of mentioning the GTAs unless you mean PC versions.
Simple if we are looking at "the future', then we have to look at past and present sales volume. The market follows the money, not blind faith in a corporate icon.

[akb825]

OpenGL will still be around even if every game is written in Direct3D. It is and has been used for scientific applications. In fact, Microsoft even supports OpenGL for that purpose. They also want to limit it to that purpose, though. They would only have OpenGL in Windows NT and say "OpenGL isn't suitable for games. DON'T USE IT!!!!!" That is until SGI came out with their own OpenGL installation for regular Windows users and showed how OpenGL is easier to use and is faster than Direct3D. Direct3D is now much easier to use, but OpenGL AFAIK still has the edge.

OpenGL will most likely always remain alive in the scientific field. It will also likely remain alive in the Linux community even if DirectX is ported to other platforms. There will be holdouts like ID, as well. Look at what influence they had: for 1 year ATI and NVidia put in special optimizations in their video cards just for DOOM III. In fact, they even have some special code that only runs when DOOM III is running.

The logic that not many mainstream games are solely OpenGL so OpenGL is doomed is flawed. According to that logic, all companies that don't have a large market share is about to die. Apparently Apple is about to be no more. Sun is about to go out of business. So will thousands of other companies.

On another note, people often buy the Mac version of games because they have a Mac, not a PC or an XBox. And some people would rather own a game rather then just rent it for a few days. That isn't even anywhere near a fare comparison.

Also, notice how games for consoles can be optimized for very specific hardware because there is only one type to build on. Plus the hardware itself is optimized for games. Saying that a computer that costs more than a console is horrible because it can't play games as well as a console is like complaining that an oven sucks because it can't toast bread as well as a toaster. (this mainly pertains to lower end computers, since obviously if you have an oven that goes up to 1000° that bread will be toast in no time!)

DOOM III, however, is a somewhat valid point because it does suck on the Mac. This is a problem that has fault both in Apple and Aspyr. On the PC side, though, as mentioned before, there are some tricky optimizations everywhere specifically for that one game.

[igame3d]

The logic that not many mainstream games are solely OpenGL so OpenGL is doomed is flawed.
Thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that it doesn't represent an absolute "future", saying it is the future is the same as saying PowerPC is the future of Macintosh computing. Its a false assumption. Unless you are actually privvy and in charge of Apple's decisions, then the future is anyone's guess.


On another note, people often buy the Mac version of games because they have a Mac, not a PC or an XBox. And some people would rather own a game rather then just rent it for a few days. That isn't even anywhere near a fare comparison. Sure it is, I am comparing consumer purchasing power and options Apple can not offer their customers, and those customers make "the future" with their dollars spent. Apple sees no profit from any Mac game sold, Microsoft on the other hand does.
3.7 Million Halo sales for instance, just for xbox. I heard more people pirated Halo than bought if for the Mac.


Also, notice how games for consoles can be optimized for very specific hardware because there is only one type to build on. Plus the hardware itself is optimized for games. Saying that a computer that costs more than a console is horrible because it can't play games as well as a console.....

Is a valid point if you read that its a Brand New computer can't play games as well as a Three year old $150 console.

If they can't get a game optimized for the hardware they are selling, or they can't get the hardware optimized for even old games, much less new ones, what do they expect consumers to perceive?

If you play a game that took 18 months to get to the Mac after it was on the market that long, cost $50 for a Mac, and is in the bargain bin for everything else at $20, and you play on new hardware, and its crap, how many more new games for the Mac are you going to risk your money on? Not many. Multiply that experience by about 50,000 people or in the case of Halo about 80,000 to 125,000.

[Josh]

Thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that it doesn't represent an absolute "future", saying it is the future is the same as saying PowerPC is the future of Macintosh computing. Its a false assumption. Unless you are actually privvy and in charge of Apple's decisions, then the future is anyone's guess.You're right. The future is anyone's guess so your points are moot as well. Debate over.

[akb825]

Thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that it doesn't represent an absolute "future", saying it is the future is the same as saying PowerPC is the future of Macintosh computing. Its a false assumption. Unless you are actually privvy and in charge of Apple's decisions, then the future is anyone's guess.
Ok, that's different. It seemed like you were saying that OpenGL had no future, though.

Sure it is, I am comparing consumer purchasing power and options Apple can not offer their customers, and those customers make "the future" with their dollars spent. Apple sees no profit from any Mac game sold, Microsoft on the other hand does.
3.7 Million Halo sales for instance, just for xbox. I heard more people pirated Halo than bought if for the Mac.
Can you clarify what you are getting at by Apple not getting any profit from the games?
About Halo, I'm sure that most of the reason is contempt by Bungie getting bought out by Microsoft. Too bad it hurt Macsoft more than Microsoft...
And to clarify (I know I wasn't too clear in my post) my remark about not a fare comparison was your comment about you can rent a game for $3 but still costs $40 on the Mac. If it costs $20 on the PC and $40 on the Mac, that's fine, but don't compare rental to retail. It's the unfortunate side effect of the prices being as delayed as the release...


Is a valid point if you read that its a Brand New computer can't play games as well as a Three year old $150 console.

If they can't get a game optimized for the hardware they are selling, or they can't get the hardware optimized for even old games, much less new ones, what do they expect consumers to perceive?
The mini's downgraded Radeon 9200 can't be much better, if at all, than the GeForce 3 in the XBox. The higher level computers such as iMac G5, PowerMacs, etc. can generally run games better at the same resolution (640x480) than the XBox. The exception is possibly DOOM III, which I already mentioned. Plus, I'm not sure if all the advanced shaders etc. are included on the XBox, or what level the graphics settings are at.

If you play a game that took 18 months to get to the Mac after it was on the market that long, cost $50 for a Mac, and is in the bargain bin for everything else at $20, and you play on new hardware, and its crap, how many more new games for the Mac are you going to risk your money on? Not many. Multiply that experience by about 50,000 people or in the case of Halo about 80,000 to 125,000.
That is definitely one huge problem for the Mac gaming industry. Hopefully, things will improve as more people buy Macs. I buy the Mac versions of games, though, because that's what I have: a Mac and not a PC or XBox. Then again, I'm more of a casual gamer than hard-core, so I don't buy too many games. There are also shareware developers to help out, though. According to a thread in the Business forum, sales on the Mac side of a multi-platform shareware game can easily outpace the Windows version. So we can help shape the future. :)

[Nick]

It's a shame really. I want to support Mac game companies so we can get quality games, but there aren't any quality games worth buying (well, that is to say games I would be willing to buy). Battlefield 2 is Windows only. I believe City of Heroes is as well. Most of the games I like only are release for Windows or consoles (such as the famed Devil May Cry series). Other games, such as Halo, are available on all systems, but clearly is done poorly not only on Mac but on PCs as well.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg? That's how I feel about buying Mac games. I want to help stir up the industry but I'm not about to buy games I don't want. But if I stir up the industry, the will start getting support and making games I will want.

[igame3d]

Can you clarify what you are getting at by Apple not getting any profit from the games?
I can buy 100 Mac games, and Apple won't see a single dime of that $5,000.
Not one penny. I can even play them on my five year old G4, and Apple isn't seeing anymore than the $300 profit they made from that machine in 2000, which they already spent on something like payroll back then.

Microsoft on the other hand owns game design studios, owns game franchises.
For the rest of their years of involvement in the games industry they will be seeing cash flow from games. Microsoft will be making money from the Halo movie, they make money from the Halo toys. Remember the Lesson of Lucas, merchandising is the force.


And to clarify (I know I wasn't too clear in my post) my remark about not a fare comparison was your comment about you can rent a game for $3 but still costs $40 on the Mac. If it costs $20 on the PC and $40 on the Mac, that's fine, but don't compare rental to retail. It's the unfortunate side effect of the prices being as delayed as the release... Its a valid point, even if its not "fair". No matter how good a Mac game is, I can no longer justify paying the price of two and a half months worth of "unlimited" games, or roughly 75 games for the price of one. Assuming I rent everyday, mostly its weekly, so more realisitically the price of 10 games.
If I'm tied up with a console game for four days, I'm not even looking at Mac download sites, who have an over abundance of soduku and tetris anyway.
I'm not unique in this the US game market it over $10 Billion in sales last year.
What do you think Mac game market worldwide made? We don't know, they are too embarassed to tell us.

By the way I was just reading that Aspyr controls 60% of the mac game market.


The mini's downgraded Radeon 9200 can't be much better, if at all, than the GeForce 3 in the XBox. Its worse than the Nvidia MX2. Its bloody awful, my daughter keeps asking me to play Halo and its unplayable.


The higher level computers such as iMac G5, PowerMacs, etc. can generally run games better at the same resolution (640x480) than the XBox.
Go digging around at insidemacgames.com, versiontracker.com, macupdate.com
you will find hundreds of people with new "high end gear" throwing fits that the games being released play terrible.


The exception is possibly DOOM III, which I already mentioned. Plus, I'm not sure if all the advanced shaders etc. are included on the XBox, or what level the graphics settings are at. Well DOOM III looked fine, you know for a big dark space station and ..uh ..hell or whatever that was. But what a boring game. "ooh looks great....yawn..FPS with no storyline worth remembering" Someone told me Chronicles of Riddick was a Doom III clone, but that game had a kick ass story and humor, and characters, it worked!
Is it on the Mac? Nope you won't see it, and its one of the best FPS I've ever played.


That is definitely one huge problem for the Mac gaming industry. Hopefully, things will improve as more people buy Macs.
Apple will never catch up unless they come up with some way to really shine.
Here's Apple's current competition when it comes to games:
cell phones, PSP, Nintendo DS, free internet games (thousands of them), Xbox, PS2, GameCube, plug and play TV joystick gizmo whatchacallims, Windows.

That list is probably not everything, but when you add all them up, Apple's game market share is less than one percent.


I buy the Mac versions of games, though, because that's what I have: a Mac and not a PC or XBox. Then again, I'm more of a casual gamer than hard-core, so I don't buy too many games. That statement is self generating "I'm a casual gamer, because I'm a Mac only gamer", you simply don't have a choice to be a hardcore gamer on Mac.
There isn't enough of a "hard core" to game with.

There are also shareware developers to help out, though.
Why? Do they feed my family? I'm amazed at what people charge for shareware, that is below the quality of the hundreds of games my daughter plays on the net for free everyday, I swear everytime I turn around she's into something new, and it cost the usualy cost of keeping the airport running for her Mom's ibook, ie, the cost of 1 Mac AAA title a month.


According to a thread in the Business forum, sales on the Mac side of a multi-platform shareware game can easily outpace the Windows version. So we can help shape the future. :)
Well thats from developers here, who are not making or marketing games with an understanding of the windows user. They also aren't offering anything newer or better than what Windows users already have in abundance. Unless you live and breath windows you are not going to know all the outlets to get your hybrid game out to that other 96% of the world's computer market, especially when probably 20% of them don't speak/read your native language (about 300 million people in that 20%)

There are 2,507 results of games for Windows at download.com and 407 for Mac.
1138 results for Mac os x games at versiontracker, 1625 for Windows.

Look at some of these download counts at cnet for windows games (http://www.download.com/3120-20_4-0.html?qt=games&tg=dl-2001&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=+Go%21)

SolSuite 2005--Solitaire Card Games Suite 5.7 6,522,979 Downloads!

Maybe Apple can get those people to switch by offering free solitaire....

[akb825]

I can buy 100 Mac games, and Apple won't see a single dime of that $5,000.
Not one penny. I can even play them on my five year old G4, and Apple isn't seeing anymore than the $300 profit they made from that machine in 2000, which they already spent on something like payroll back then.

Microsoft on the other hand owns game design studios, owns game franchises.
For the rest of their years of involvement in the games industry they will be seeing cash flow from games. Microsoft will be making money from the Halo movie, they make money from the Halo toys. Remember the Lesson of Lucas, merchandising is the force.
I still don't see the relevance. Apple isn't trying to compete in the game industry. That's what I'm asking you to clarify: what that does for the Mac gaming industry.

Its a valid point, even if its not "fair". No matter how good a Mac game is, I can no longer justify paying the price of two and a half months worth of "unlimited" games, or roughly 75 games for the price of one. Assuming I rent everyday, mostly its weekly, so more realisitically the price of 10 games.
If I'm tied up with a console game for four days, I'm not even looking at Mac download sites, who have an over abundance of soduku and tetris anyway.
I'm not unique in this the US game market it over $10 Billion in sales last year.
What do you think Mac game market worldwide made? We don't know, they are too embarassed to tell us.
Do the developers even get the money from the rental, or just the one-time fee for selling the game to the rental place? If it's the latter, it doesn't really pertain to the gaming industry, just the rental industry. If it's the latter, than it is an issue. I personally would rather own a game, though.

Its worse than the Nvidia MX2. Its bloody awful, my daughter keeps asking me to play Halo and its unplayable.
My point exactly. It's a new computer, but no better technically than the console. Hence: the console was built for games, but the mini was not, so there isn't a comparison.

Go digging around at insidemacgames.com, versiontracker.com, macupdate.com
you will find hundreds of people with new "high end gear" throwing fits that the games being released play terrible.
I've also seen people with eMacs saying that Halo runs perfectly fine and smoothly. Games such as Knights of the Old Republic (which a lot of people complain about) also have just as many problems on the PC.

Apple will never catch up unless they come up with some way to really shine.
Here's Apple's current competition when it comes to games:
cell phones, PSP, Nintendo DS, free internet games (thousands of them), Xbox, PS2, GameCube, plug and play TV joystick gizmo whatchacallims, Windows

That list is probably not everything, but when you add all them up, Apple's game market share is less than one percent..
True, they have a lot of work to do. It is getting better lately, and hopefully it will finally take hold. (not necessarily catch up, but at least get more of the popular games we all ache for) *crosses fingers*

That statement is self generating "I'm a casual gamer, because I'm a Mac only gamer", you simply don't have a choice to be a hardcore gamer on Mac.
There isn't enough of a "hard core" to game with.
I'm not a casual gamer because I'm a Mac gamer, I'm a Mac gamer because I'm a casual gamer. I would have bought a PC as my computer a few months ago instead of a Mac if I was that interested in playing games. However, I just wanted to play games every once in a while as a diversion, and work on my development. Since my work on my computer was more important than gaming, I decided to get a Mac. For me, the Mac game supply is sufficient, and I don't mind paying a premium for the few games I buy to be able to use my platform of choice. I know I'm not the only one, which is why the Mac gaming industry is still alive.

Why? Do they feed my family? I'm amazed at what people charge for shareware, that is below the quality of the hundreds of games my daughter plays on the net for free everyday, I swear everytime I turn around she's into something new, and it cost the usualy cost of keeping the airport running for her Mom's ibook, ie, the cost of 1 Mac AAA title a month.
Shareware games from independent developers help add diversity and numbers to our games. For example, look at Jammin' Racer or Lugaru: they are good quality shareware games that could almost be commercial, and we could use more like them. There is a lot of crap out there, but it's the good ones that take hold.

Well thats from developers here, who are not making or marketing games with an understanding of the windows user. They also aren't offering anything newer or better than what Windows users already have in abundance. Unless you live and breath windows you are not going to know all the outlets to get your hybrid game out to that other 96% of the world's computer market, especially when probably 20% of them don't speak/read your native language (about 300 million people in that 20%)
What difference does knowing about Windows users mean about conversion rates? Look at this (http://www.idevgames.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9521) thread, and quite a number of people citing their sales and other's say that the ratio of sales to downloads is much lower for Windows on the Mac.

[socksy]

I've also seen people with eMacs saying that Halo runs perfectly fine and smoothly.

Haha! I wish.
With all settings turned down apart from models (which are low on polygons anyway) it still stutters. And it won't play nicely unless it's the only app launched after a restart.

Back to the original thing. It just isn't going to happen. Just like hell isn't going to freese over and how apple aren't going to turn to intel. It just isn't going to happen.

[akb825]

What were the shader settings? (AFAIK, you can only set them at the app startup)

It was actually an iBook G4 800 MHz that I was thinking of. There's some low-end experience in this (http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/66810) thread of the Mac Addict Forums.

[igame3d]

I still don't see the relevance. Apple isn't trying to compete in the game industry. That's what I'm asking you to clarify: what that does for the Mac gaming industry.
Since they make no profit from games, they do not benefit from the $10 Billion dollar a year industry (US sales only), and what this does is limit Apple user options and satisfaction.



Do the developers even get the money from the rental, or just the one-time fee for selling the game to the rental place? If it's the latter, it doesn't really pertain to the gaming industry, just the rental industry. If it's the latter, than it is an issue. I personally would rather own a game, though.
Rentals are a benefit to the user not the industry, although in a sense they act like a shareware download site. The rental industry has not hurt the games industries budget at all, in fact it improves it, there is no way in any level of hell that I would have bough an playstation almost ten years or ago or an Xbox this year if I had to buy every game for $50. The games I have bought are sitting there collecting dust because, well, I finished them, and the replay value after about a week of playing is not "replay value" its "I must have no life if I'm playing this again!".

I was at the video store tonight, picked up a PSP game and was like "I want one of these!", the game looked amazing. Thats what rental does for the console industry, gives them a space to assure consumer confidence and entice the consumer.



My point exactly. It's a new computer, but no better technically than the console. Hence: the console was built for games, but the mini was not, so there isn't a comparison.
Apple advertises Mac Mini as:
The most affordable Mac for games ever
right on their website and its definately not a machine built for even last years games.
So Apple itself is making the comparison, and failing to live up to the claim.


I've also seen people with eMacs saying that Halo runs perfectly fine and smoothly. Games such as Knights of the Old Republic (which a lot of people complain about) also have just as many problems on the PC. Yeah some people's "fine" is not everyone's. I thought Halo playing on my dual 450 was "fine" because, well the game is not supposed to even play on that, so the fact I could get running at all was "fine".
Then I get a Mac Mini and the performance is WORSE!!


True, they have a lot of work to do. It is getting better lately, and hopefully it will finally take hold. (not necessarily catch up, but at least get more of the popular games we all ache for) *crosses fingers* If "getting better" means having to buy new hardware for over a thousand dollars then its not better than what else is available, and never will be. Getting the games we want involves ports, which have been shabby, and since nobody wants to pay for Havok engine, then most of the games aren't showing up anytime soon on the Mac. Many games we "want' are based on screenshots, trailers, hype. When we finally have it in our hands, we don't want it. Like Star Wars BattleFront, which took an extra six months or so to get to the Mac, looks awesome, but sucks nuts. Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness also, hey I love the tomb raider series, but why does it get ported to Mac a year after every review site in the universe ripped it so many holes that it was transparent?
Its like the porting houses don't care about selling shit, since they don't offer refunds, or maybe they don't play the games they port and can't tell vomit when they smell it. How bad was Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness? So bad it almost put Eidos out of business, and they are the people who fund other game developers, so that would have been a domino effect.


Shareware games from independent developers help add diversity and numbers to our games. For example, look at Jammin' Racer or Lugaru: they are good quality shareware games that could almost be commercial, and we could use more like them. There is a lot of crap out there, but it's the good ones that take hold.
The term "shareware" is a false term. They have a "demo" and then they have "commercial" product, if I am charged anything other than free, then its "commercial".
I am not allowed by license to share the game with anyone, so the whole "share" idea is out the door. Danlab and David Rosen make games they like, not what I like, so I'm not big fans of their games, their talents yes, the games, no. I enjoyed helping them beta test their games more than playing them. If Danlab or David made thier own game making utilities I'd be sure to support that, because what i've seen of their editors gave me goosebumps.



What difference does knowing about Windows users mean about conversion rates?
Look at this (http://www.idevgames.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9521) thread, and quite a number of people citing their sales and other's say that the ratio of sales to downloads is much lower for Windows on the Mac.
Simple you have to know how to market and develop with a target demographic.
If I design jeans for boys, hand out free pairs to everyone to try on, I'm not going to sell as many to girls. If there is a room of a 100 people and I sell a game to 1 of the 4 Mac people in that room, I've reached 20% of the Mac market, but the ratio is not going to be the same if I only sell to 1 of the 80 Windows users in the room. Thats basically the conversion rate. The competion reaches a whole new level in the Windows market, what passes for a exceptional game on the Mac is only average on Windows, because the Mac market as much smaller selection of games to compare to.

I'm well aware of that thread and the games mentioned in that thread, since I've beta tested them for a bit, witnessed their birth and watched them as they changed their daipers and made it from uDevgames to commercial product. The fact that Jake has sold as many copies of GLGolf as he has is simply astounding, its like the solitaire example I left above, its a market I have never even imagined as its a game I would never play. Kind of like my success with Dawn of the Derby, I wouldn't even have played the game if I didn't make it, but the Mac market is starving for racing games.
When I see the racing game my friend is working on I'm left drooling by the graphics, Redline is going to be beautiful.

I was just looking at the Coderus macDX site, doesn't look like anyone has taken an interest in this, for whatever reason. Their "latest news" is from November 29 2002.
Ancient History. Well there is this
http://www.vpltd.com/images/kshiftpic_03.jpg

Tempting.

[akb825]

Since they make no profit from games, they do not benefit from the $10 Billion dollar a year industry (US sales only), and what this does is limit Apple user options and satisfaction.
Ok, I see your point, now. However, you could also argue that Microsoft isn't benefiting from the movie industry like Apple is. I would say that it would be nice if Apple would step into the gaming industry, though.

Rentals are a benefit to the user not the industry, although in a sense they act like a shareware download site. The rental industry has not hurt the games industries budget at all, in fact it improves it, there is no way in any level of hell that I would have bough an playstation almost ten years or ago or an Xbox this year if I had to buy every game for $50. The games I have bought are sitting there collecting dust because, well, I finished them, and the replay value after about a week of playing is not "replay value" its "I must have no life if I'm playing this again!".

I was at the video store tonight, picked up a PSP game and was like "I want one of these!", the game looked amazing. Thats what rental does for the console industry, gives them a space to assure consumer confidence and entice the consumer.
I never said it hurt the industry budget, I was just saying that rentals don't add anything to their budget while sales do. (and I'm not talking about rentals that lead to sales, sort of try before you buy) That's why I was saying that you shouldn't compare rental prices to sales: because they aren't sales, and therefore don't directly increase the budget of the gaming industry (by itself, not counting the sales generated by people liking the game)

Apple advertises Mac Mini as:
The most affordable Mac for games ever

right on their website and its definately not a machine built for even last years games.
So Apple itself is making the comparison, and failing to live up to the claim.
Ok, now that's just false advertising. I'd say the iMac G5 would be more under that category (for casual Mac gaming) I personally don't put much weight on company propaganda from anyone.

Yeah some people's "fine" is not everyone's. I thought Halo playing on my dual 450 was "fine" because, well the game is not supposed to even play on that, so the fact I could get running at all was "fine".
Then I get a Mac Mini and the performance is WORSE!!
Point taken, but this is on hardware (well, video card, at least) that is worse than the XBox, and yet still has playable framerates. IIRC, the PC version had some problems of its own, BTW.

If "getting better" means having to buy new hardware for over a thousand dollars then its not better than what else is available, and never will be. Getting the games we want involves ports, which have been shabby, and since nobody wants to pay for Havok engine, then most of the games aren't showing up anytime soon on the Mac. Many games we "want' are based on screenshots, trailers, hype. When we finally have it in our hands, we don't want it. Like Star Wars BattleFront, which took an extra six months or so to get to the Mac, looks awesome, but sucks nuts. Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness also, hey I love the tomb raider series, but why does it get ported to Mac a year after every review site in the universe ripped it so many holes that it was transparent?
Its like the porting houses don't care about selling shit, since they don't offer refunds, or maybe they don't play the games they port and can't tell vomit when they smell it. How bad was Tomb Raider Angel of Darkness? So bad it almost put Eidos out of business, and they are the people who fund other game developers, so that would have been a domino effect.
By getting better I mean that we get more mainstream games. I never said that it was really extremely good, I'm just saying it's getting better. Right now we're getting more games. Next step is to not inflate the system requirements and add bugs. Most of the bugs will get ironed out, as they have in the past. Halo used to not have hardware lense flare, have nonfunctional FSAA, and screw up on NVidia cards. Those are fixed. UT2k4 used to die on single-processor Macs because of a sound bug. Fixed. These bugs are temporary. As budgets grow, so will quality. We're getting more quantity now, so that gives more opportunity for the budgets to grow.

The term "shareware" is a false term. They have a "demo" and then they have "commercial" product, if I am charged anything other than free, then its "commercial".
I am not allowed by license to share the game with anyone, so the whole "share" idea is out the door. Danlab and David Rosen make games they like, not what I like, so I'm not big fans of their games, their talents yes, the games, no. I enjoyed helping them beta test their games more than playing them. If Danlab or David made thier own game making utilities I'd be sure to support that, because what i've seen of their editors gave me goosebumps.
Call it whatever you'd like. You're just splitting hairs now with the terminology. As for the games, different people have different opinions.

Simple you have to know how to market and develop with a target demographic.
If I design jeans for boys, hand out free pairs to everyone to try on, I'm not going to sell as many to girls. If there is a room of a 100 people and I sell a game to 1 of the 4 Mac people in that room, I've reached 20% of the Mac market, but the ratio is not going to be the same if I only sell to 1 of the 80 Windows users in the room. Thats basically the conversion rate. The competion reaches a whole new level in the Windows market, what passes for a exceptional game on the Mac is only average on Windows, because the Mac market as much smaller selection of games to compare to.

I'm well aware of that thread and the games mentioned in that thread, since I've beta tested them for a bit, witnessed their birth and watched them as they changed their daipers and made it from uDevgames to commercial product. The fact that Jake has sold as many copies of GLGolf as he has is simply astounding, its like the solitaire example I left above, its a market I have never even imagined as its a game I would never play. Kind of like my success with Dawn of the Derby, I wouldn't even have played the game if I didn't make it, but the Mac market is starving for racing games.
When I see the racing game my friend is working on I'm left drooling by the graphics, Redline is going to be beautiful.

I was just looking at the Coderus macDX site, doesn't look like anyone has taken an interest in this, for whatever reason. Their "latest news" is from November 29 2002.
Ancient History. Well there is this
http://www.vpltd.com/images/kshiftpic_03.jpg

Tempting.
Point taken. I doubt if we'll ever know whether it's more the Windows demographic or the state of shareware on the platform. If you have figures or have heard of stories one way or another, do share. I'm curious to see how the Windows market is like for shareware developers, since I plan on releasing hybrid games.

Come on, people, we need more than just 2 opinions in here! :p

[diordna]

Incidentally, I can play Halo just fine, albeit with superfluous graphical effects turned off.

eMac 1 GHz 384 MB RAM

[igame3d]

Incidentally, I can play Halo just fine, albeit with superfluous graphical effects turned off.

eMac 1 GHz 384 MB RAM

I wonder if the eMac has a faster hard drive and its a caching issue.
Thats what it feels like to me, all the stutter and stop reminds me of
using Photoshop, illustrator and QuarkXpress simultaneous on 64Mb or Ram
and virtual memory with a fragmented hard drive.

I haven't rebooted in 11 days...I wonder if it will make a difference.

[AnotherJake]

Come on, people, we need more than just 2 opinions in here! :p
My opinion is that you have a good opinion (albeit unrealistic at some points. Still enthusiastic all the same..) Good stuff!:)

[BeyondCloister]

The term "shareware" is a false term. They have a "demo" and then they have "commercial" product, if I am charged anything other than free, then its "commercial".

The term shareware comes from the distribution method. You get the software and share the distribution with other people. You can give it to as many people as you want and thus sharing the distribution. It is then up to each user to pay for the software if they wish to use it further. This is the reason the licenses stated you can pass on the software as long as you do not charge more than the cost of the distribution material.

The games that can be downloaded as shareware titles are just the same. There is nothing to stop you giving a copy of the game you have downloaded to everyone on the planet. What you cannot give them is the license for the full version which you purchased for the game.

[igame3d]

The term shareware comes from the distribution method. You get the software and share the distribution with other people. You can give it to as many people as you want and thus sharing the distribution. It is then up to each user to pay for the software if they wish to use it further. This is the reason the licenses stated you can pass on the software as long as you do not charge more than the cost of the distribution material.

Andrew the term shareware was coined before the internet, when people had to pass things to each other with five inch floppy disks and BBS services, followed by three inch floppy disks and CD Rom Magazines. We no longer do that, there is no need for it, as anyone can get the files from the place the author has personally placed it for download. The author is the only person "sharing" anything, because it is the primary means of getting "commercial" interest in the title.


The games that can be downloaded as shareware titles are just the same. There is nothing to stop you giving a copy of the game you have downloaded to everyone on the planet. What you cannot give them is the license for the full version which you purchased for the game.

Of course there is something stopping people from giving a "shareware" title to everyone on the planet, the simple cost factor of providing such a service, with absolutely no financial reward for doing so.

Once upon a time, hosting a dozen or more new "shareware" titles a month on your magazine floppy disk, CD-Rom or your BBS was what drew people to your service and kept them coming back, AmigaFormat and MacAddict for instance. In the case of a BBS it was over phone lines so no matter how many users you had and no matter how many downloads from your site the cost of running your service never changed and continuing monthly subscriptions to your service equaled profit, not the loss that hosting such material on a website and being charged for bandwidth use represents today.

Today, generally, authors personally host their material on a commercial service providers server, post their demo to a commercial web site, as a draw for the commercial advertisers that support such sites and are immediately charged when their bandwidth exceeds their licensed allowances. The author might share thousands of downloads before getting a sale, but if he didn't, the chances of getting any sales at all would be one in a million. Since traditional commercial advertising is closed to the majority of authors through excessive costs, the download demo first method and its hidden costs are the alternative to spending money on media advertising.

In the end, if the software does not fully function until it is paid for, then its a commercial product with a demo mode. "Shareware" is just a nice way of saying "crippled until you pay", because that would sound too much like the work style of organized crime, or Microsoft.

[BeyondCloister]

I am fully aware of the origins of shareware from using computers back in the days before the internet. It just appeared from your previous rants that you were not aware of this, my apology.

There are lots of term used these days, both computing and otherwise, which no longer hold their original mean.

[Zwilnik]

yup, for instance, I don't see any Greek politicians standing around debating in this forum :)

The tone of a lot of the posts on iDev at the moment come across as having something against the idea of commercial products or developers earning money from their work. I'm all for developers who want people to have their games as free as possible, but please respect the decisions of developers who want to try and scratch a living from their work.

[PowerMacX]

Andrew the term shareware was coined before the internet, when people had to pass things to each other with five inch floppy disks and BBS services, followed by three inch floppy disks and CD Rom Magazines. We no longer do that, there is no need for it, as anyone can get the files from the place the author has personally placed it for download. The author is the only person "sharing" anything, because it is the primary means of getting "commercial" interest in the title.
[...]
In the end, if the software does not fully function until it is paid for, then its a commercial product with a demo mode. "Shareware" is just a nice way of saying "crippled until you pay", because that would sound too much like the work style of organized crime, or Microsoft.

A lot of "computer" words have lost their original meaning. To me, a shareware game is such that when you download it, you download the full game, but you have to pay to unlock it, being restricted to a limited time of full functionality or fewer levels/options/nag screens, etc.
A demo, on the other hand, is not the full game, it is usually smaller in size and sometimes it has custom made levels/graphics/sounds, not found on the full version.
Also, shareware is heavily associated with "online" games/apps, and while demos are too, the full version of those games/apps are usually available "boxed".

Does the shareware label imply "commercial"? Yes. Does "commercial" imply shareware? Obviously not, so using a label, even if it doesn't mean the same now as it did 20 years ago makes sense.

"Shareware" is just a nice way of saying "crippled until you pay"

I prefer "try before you buy" ;)

or Microsoft.

"crippled even though you pay", in this case... :wacko:

[socksy]

I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here. What shareware originally meant was that the whole game was shared to everybody not crippled, but if you liked it you were obliged to pay $5 or whatever price. Famous example: Maelstrom. The only difference I see with the registered version is a little text saying "this is registered to so and so".

[Zwilnik]

Shareware always referred to the distribution method for a non boxed commercial title. Back in the old days, when computers were steam powered there was commercial software sold by mail order or in shops and the novel (at the time) concept of public domain disks, with free software on them that you could copy for your friends. You could also distribute the disks as long as you didn't charge more than a nominal fee to cover the cost of the disk and duplication. I've still got an advert in a Nibble Express magazine somewhere for the first of these on the Apple ][.

Shareware started from titles distributed on public domain disks that the user was obliged to register if they were going to keep and use permanently. Sometimes the author would limit the un-registered usage in some way, sometimes they'd rely on the honesty of the users. Shareware titles have always been commercial (ie they were intended to be paid for) but the amounts and limits on the un-registered versions would differ.

Escape Velocity was a good example of shareware in that you downloaded the data for the whole game, but unless you registered, you'd have no chance of surviving past a certain point because the evil Captain Hector (the Ambrosia office parrot in a super deadly ship) would blast you into space dust once you'd been playing for a certain length of time.

Typically a shareware title will differ from a commercial demo in that the full version of the game simply involves registering the application, or downloading or being mailed the final content once it's registered (The original Doom was a shareware title technically. You could play the first chapter for free and could then buy the full disk by mail order. Eventually they managed to get the disks in shops in super minimalist packaging).

What has blurred the lines in more recent years is that it's easier for the average user to duplicate/download/distribute commercial titles the same way as shareware titles (there was always an element of this, but the speed and anonimity of the net has multiplied it massively). This has resulted in commercial titles needing to adopt some of the shareware registration methods to attempt to limit the spread of the stolen copies, making things more annoying for the user.

[PowerMacX]

Some random browsing brought me to this page (http://www.thehollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/video_games_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000884458)

Some interesting bits:
THR: Is this situation going to worsen as games become even more expensive to build?
Lanning: Absolutely. Costs are going up, but not because the quality expectation is higher. Costs are going up because of the design of the next-generation hardware. The code that just one guy used to write on the Xbox is now going to take five guys.
Lanning: [...] Video game systems aren't being designed to be conducive to development, creativity, or content. They're being designed to be cheaper for manufacturing. If movie cameras were made that way, you'd have a rebellion in Hollywood. But this isn't Hollywood and it isn't a movie camera; it's a videogame system and the public wants basically a $1,000 box but only wants to pay $150 for it.

[igame3d]

From the same article:
Instead, Lorne Lanning, president and creative director of the award-winning Oddworld Inhabitants, is waving goodbye to all that and is taking his company to where he sees greater opportunities – to movies and TV.

Going into movies eh? (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05187/533310.stm)
both box office and attendance numbers are down this year, adding to the steady drumbeat of bad news for the movies.

An estimated 65 million fewer tickets have been sold this year than last. Just looking at the summer, that's 31 million fewer tickets, and countless fewer popcorn-and-Coke combos.

Lanning just seems to be burned out. The complaints he is making in the article are the same exact complaints I hear at E3 conferences 10 years ago. By now most developers should realise that aligning yourself with Electronic Arts is like a coke binge suicide attempt, it feels good when they are getting you addicted to their funding and resources, and then you crash hard when they don't give you the same high dose fix.

I guess once you accept tens of millions of dollars a year form someone, you can 't turn around and see things "independantly" anymore.

The fact that Lanning threw his hands up and put 60 employees on the street sure doesn't make him any kind of cool dude. The Oddworld games weren't really that good anyway, after playing half of the first one I never touched the rest of the franchise again.

While attendance has been down this year, the numbers are still pretty good for the industry: Last year's attendance of 1.5 billion was better than the 1.3 billion from 1994, with last year's $9.4 billion in ticket grosses dwarfing the $5.4 billion 10 years earlier. The average ticket price also grew, of course, from $4.17 in 1994 to $6.21 in 2004.

Video Game Sales in America last year = $10.3 Billion. The price of games has pretty much remained stable, I remember buying Jungle Hunt for Atari 2600 back in...well 20 years ago or so for $50. Halo 2 for Xbox cost me $40, Proffessor Fizzwizzle for my Daughter's Mac cost $20.

Movies sales simply can't work that kind of sliding price range.
One thing is for certain though, both Spider-Man 2 and Fantastic Four movies were much better than either of the games based on them.

[PowerMacX]

One thing is for certain though, both Spider-Man 2 and Fantastic Four movies were much better than either of the games based on them.

LOL

BTW, the title of this thread is "DirectX in Mac OS X's Future?"
...so this seems just about right: DirectX in OpenGL's Future? (http://opengl.org) :mad:

[igame3d]

Wow that is just plain evil.

[akb825]

Yet another way for MS to say "See, look, OpenGL is soooooooo slooooow! It sucks! Use Direct3D! We made it!!!!!"