Hearsay from a biased source. Wow. How many times will we hear from whiners who can't separate fact from hearsay, who would rather believe the worst of someone, especially someone an order of magnitude more successful and well-known. This continuing morbid fascination with the personality of Steve Jobs, known for his intensity and directness, is really rather silly. How in fact did you get to "narcissistic personality"? And as compared to whom? What CEO is not driven, direct and intense? Know any personally in the Fortune 10? 100? 500? You sound more "trapped" than committed. Perhaps a change is in order, because I can deduce from your comments that you would rather deal with the "quality control" of say Dell, or Acer or HP - who have much better QC than Apple. Don't they? So how about some tolerance for diversity in personality? How about lauding the personalities that drive innovation (not worship, just laud) and chuckle with a knowing wink when the Gateses, the Ballmerses, the Jobses, Schmidtses and so on demonstrate a little personality and intensity. Even when it is most rumor and innuendo.
It's easy to 'chuckle' when you're not one of the people working there under such conditions. It's easy to attribute such behavior to "drive" and "genius" when talking about a few individuals that you can count on half a hand. But let's see how people will like it if every manager at every company starts acting like a pissed off Jobs or a raging Balmer. How long before such behavior becomes tiresome? Instead of just managers, how about we let every employee in every business start acting like that? After all, shouldn't people aspire to "greatness"?
And as a pop culture reference, how many people still enjoy watching House after 3 seasons, and haven't been completely turned off by that character?
In fact Apple sold a lot more Macs in the time frame than Microsoft has sold Xbox.
Lots of the early adopters of Xbox bought it for Halo, do you think they may have bought Macs instead maybe?
Your assumptions are a bit of a stretch.
Not all Macs or Xboxes were sold for the single purpose of playing Halo. Definitely not all Macs were bought to play games at all. I don't know how many "Lots" are, but I doubt as many people would buy a $1000 computer vs a $300 gaming console for a single game.
Halo just worked out great on Xbox, more-so than it would have on a Mac. You can't possibly try to sell me on this idea that the Mac version would have done just as well. That's completely idiotic, to be honest with you.
Oh couldn't agree more. As we all know, Halo struggled on the unsuccessful XBOX Platform. It could of been a major success on the Powerhouse Gaming Platform, the Mac!!
Thanks again for your well thought out and intelligent post!!!
Except when compared to the XBox the Mac IS a far better gaming platform. When you see a game developed properly using OpenGL then have that game play on Windows and Macs then you see the Mac, even with lesser specs, actually out performs the PC.
The XBox is a complete waste of PPC processors and proof that Microsoft doesn't have a clue. Sure Halo did well on the platform but in reality it was only due to the licensing deal with Microsoft who only made the game for XBox. People didn't play it on the Mac because they already played it to death on the XBox so shelling out more money for it later on down the track doesn't make sense.
That being said Halo sucks balls. What the hell is everyone on about thinking it's a great game? It's a steaming pile of dog turds.
good on you jobs. He should be allowed to do that make a good game then let a Microsoft take over. bungie you have fail so bad if you stayed on you will be making lots more money.
You're right, Halo turned out to be a complete failure on the Xbox, a gaming machine. It would have been so much more successful on the Mac, a platform well known for its gaming community.
Perhaps the poster MEANT to EMPHASIZE the word MAC as opposed to say PC - by using all caps to as you might stress the word in speech - yes I MEANT to say MAC.
Also, we all know that if this story was reversed, you know, Apple buying out some developer that was committing to be releasing a game for Windows, every comment here would be exactly the opposite. How Apple "made the developer better," how the developer made the right choice being bought by Apple, how the games did so much better on the Mac than on Windows, etc.
Remember, it's always sunshine and rainbows when Apple buys out a developer, but gloom and doom when Microsoft buys out a developer. Never change.
Except when compared to the XBox the Mac IS a far better gaming platform. When you see a game developed properly using OpenGL then have that game play on Windows and Macs then you see the Mac, even with lesser specs, actually out performs the PC.
The XBox is a complete waste of PPC processors and proof that Microsoft doesn't have a clue. Sure Halo did well on the platform but in reality it was only due to the licensing deal with Microsoft who only made the game for XBox. People didn't play it on the Mac because they already played it to death on the XBox so shelling out more money for it later on down the track doesn't make sense.
That being said Halo sucks balls. What the hell is everyone on about thinking it's a great game? It's a steaming pile of dog turds.
KEY PHRASE: "When developed properly."
Also, you only dislike Halo because it was released on the Xbox. You know that had the exact same game been released on a Mac first, you'd be praising it as one of the best and most original games of all time.
It's most definitely true. It was one of the most egregious examples of poaching in the industry.
The first anyone heard of Halo, was when Steve Jobs introduced it on stage at an Apple event. It stunned the crowd because at the time it was beyond leading edge graphics and so forth. He finished the announcement with a statement that it was coming "exclusively to the mac" in the near future.
You don't get any closer to a "done deal" than that, but then Microsoft bought them out from underneath Apple for the express purpose of shutting Apple out.
It was a very dirty deal IMO. I'm not sure who's most at fault, Bungie or Microsoft, but someone (probably lots of someones) seriously compromised their morals with this deal.
How exactly do you figure it was a dirty deal? Microsoft needed a flagship product for their XBOX they offered to buy Bungie and Bungie accepted. No different than Nintendo buying Rare years earlier...
Microsoft managed to bring that game to far more people than it would have seen on a Mac.
Exactly. The Mac does not currently have and will never have the market share that Windows has. Anyone who claims otherwise is completely ignorant of the truth. Had Halo been released either exclusively on the Mac or been on the Mac platform first, it wouldn't have gotten nearly the exposure it ultimately did on the Xbox or PC, and that's a fact. It's not inherently a good or bad fact, it's just the truth: The Mac install base is nowhere near the Windows install base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Get over it.
Exactly. Is this site really bringing up a story that would have taken place more than a decade ago? Guess what? Halo made its way on the Mac anyway, end of story. In the end, the game got more exposure by being available on multiple platforms, and that's only a good thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins
and where is the Apple Pippin2?
Unless Apple is developing a home console, I don't know what company is gonna write a AAA game made only for the Mac.
And once again, spot on. Developers go where the money is, and there's a lot more money to made developing games for the Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3 then there is for the App Store, where Apple has to manually approve every game and most apps are quite simple in nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue27
Steve making an angry call to Microsoft over the Bungie buyout was common news 10 years ago. Why is it being posted today?
Because obviously the fanboys on this site didn't get enough relevant articles today that worship Steve Jobs and Apple so they needed another one. Expect an article tomorrow about Steve Jobs that took place 50 years ago.
How exactly do you figure it was a dirty deal? Microsoft needed a flagship product for their XBOX they offered to buy Bungie and Bungie accepted. No different than Nintendo buying Rare years earlier...
Remember the site you're on. When Microsoft makes a deal to a developer and they accept, it's a terrible, horrible thing. When Apple does exactly the same thing, it's the most wonderful act ever accomplished by humanity.
How many times will we hear about Steve's kurt and inappropriate comments? Is it not enough to be leading one of the highest valued companies? His narcissistic personality was old last century and I can only hope that his "handlers" would get a tighter rein on him. I love their products even though many of them have had to be replaced because of poor quality control. But I am committed to the system and going over to a PC would be counterproductive. So, how about a little more innovation and a little less conversation.
Oh, come on, don't be a little priss. BULLETIN: when any of these guys gets the wool pulled on them, they shout and scream, all of them. If you're so afraid of Daddy, go to therapy.
Perhaps the poster MEANT to EMPHASIZE the word MAC as opposed to say PC - by using all caps to as you might stress the word in speech - yes I MEANT to say MAC.
MAC is the MAC address. Mac is short for Macintosh.
Apple were to blame 100% for that disastrous acquisition.
Their lack of support for gaming has always been lamentable. Game Sprockets being the last faltering gesture toward game development on the Mac. Apple blew it completely with OS X and Jobs was behind that management decision.
Even today there is no commitment to the latest GPU technology/drivers or a concerted financial incentive to entice game developers to use OpenGL instead of MS DirectX which would make their games far more platform agnostic.
Just stick to your pretty wee toys Steve. Let MS do what it always does best, support developers, developers, developers.
It's all well and good bragging about the number of developers coding for Apple products but how many of the current innovative indie (like Bungie was in its heyday) or AAA games developers are showing any interest in the Mac?
You're wallowing in cash and some of that could be earmarked for a seriously dedicated Apple Mac gaming division.
how many of the current innovative indie (like Bungie was in its heyday) or AAA games developers are showing any interest in the Mac?
Valve. That's all that matters. Steam's the key to the future of gaming on the Mac. It's only one step, but it's about as good a first step as anyone could have imagined.
Also, force fricking nVidia and AMD to use EFI on their cards and THEN maybe we'd have a larger base.
Valve. That's all that matters. Steam's the key to the future of gaming on the Mac. It's only one step, but it's about as good a first step as anyone could have imagined.
Also, force fricking nVidia and AMD to use EFI on their cards and THEN maybe we'd have a larger base.
Valve is a start. Good as some of them are, it is still only bringing ages old games to the Mac. I have no idea what sort of weight they can apply to developers to look seriously at OS X so long as Jobs has his ambivalent attitude toward gaming. Apparently iToy gaming took Apple by surprise. But anyone who follows gaming knows how big a driving force it is in consumer consciousness. I've known 100's and 100's of people who would have preferred a Mac over a PC if Apple had supported gaming. I'm just one Mac user, we all know PC home users who fire that specific arrow at Apple's Achilles heel.
Apple couldn't force a fart in the gaming community, so it isn't very likely to get nVidia or AMD to cough up for EFI firmware. And Intel have some responsibility to promote EFI over BIOS.
There's probably some sort of deal struck that ensures Apple continues to use Intel CPU's so long as Intel keeps EFI from replacing BIOS in the wider PC market. Apple would hate to see OS X so accessible to Hackintoshists.
Are we sure this story is accurate? All the junk I've read on the web over the decades is that Steve Jobs has been extraordinarily anti-game on the Mac platform. He wanted the Mac to be treated as a serious business machine (for the rest of us?). Hard to believe he'd then have a fit when a gaming vendor left the platform. Then again, he's supposedly a fairly mercurial personality.
On the other hand, it may not have been about games at all. Maybe he just took the whole incident personally, talking up Bungie on stage at Macworld only to see them snatched away by MS.
Apple couldn't force a fart in the gaming community, so it isn't very likely to get nVidia or AMD to cough up for EFI firmware. And Intel have some responsibility to promote EFI over BIOS.
And being on the Blu-ray association's board of directors, doesn't Apple have some responsibility to promote Blu-ray?
The only ones crying today are Microsoft and Bungie.
Certainly not Apple.
How is Bungie crying? Seriously? They're doing QUITE well. They're now a part of Activision (that's another topic of it's own), and they're developing a NEW IP.
Also, a LOT of you seem to have selective memory. The BIG thing about Halo was that it was not the FPS that everyone knows of today UNTIL Bungie began developing on the XBox. At the time, it was primarily being seen as a third person shooter. Before that? Halo was a real-time strategy.
All of the success that Bungie had on Halo as we know it today DID NOT OCCUR until it was being developed on the XBox.
I've never been convinced by Blu-ray on home PC's. The HDTV standard isn't?and now there's bloody nonsense 3D to contend with! TV's come in all resolutions. I think dedicated Blu-ray players, coupled with 720 streaming, is the way ahead (for the foreseeable future).
People gladly accept MP3 and AAC for audio, and, though part of a whole, human ears are less easily deceived than eyes. I've watched HD and conventional versions of the same film and HD made not the slightest difference to the quality of the film.
I do believe it would have been a bag of hurt but I also think that whilst I believe it was not right for home computers, Apple should have made it an option. BTO, you'd pay more, but you'd get what you want and not what Steve thinks you ought to have.
I still think it ironic that Steve thinks its alright for him to replace and upgrade bits of his body but refuses Mac customers the same privileges with their computers. Just what would he have done if he'd had to choose between hospitals run by Apple, MS or Google?
Comments
Hearsay from a biased source. Wow. How many times will we hear from whiners who can't separate fact from hearsay, who would rather believe the worst of someone, especially someone an order of magnitude more successful and well-known. This continuing morbid fascination with the personality of Steve Jobs, known for his intensity and directness, is really rather silly. How in fact did you get to "narcissistic personality"? And as compared to whom? What CEO is not driven, direct and intense? Know any personally in the Fortune 10? 100? 500? You sound more "trapped" than committed. Perhaps a change is in order, because I can deduce from your comments that you would rather deal with the "quality control" of say Dell, or Acer or HP - who have much better QC than Apple. Don't they? So how about some tolerance for diversity in personality? How about lauding the personalities that drive innovation (not worship, just laud) and chuckle with a knowing wink when the Gateses, the Ballmerses, the Jobses, Schmidtses and so on demonstrate a little personality and intensity. Even when it is most rumor and innuendo.
It's easy to 'chuckle' when you're not one of the people working there under such conditions. It's easy to attribute such behavior to "drive" and "genius" when talking about a few individuals that you can count on half a hand. But let's see how people will like it if every manager at every company starts acting like a pissed off Jobs or a raging Balmer. How long before such behavior becomes tiresome? Instead of just managers, how about we let every employee in every business start acting like that? After all, shouldn't people aspire to "greatness"?
And as a pop culture reference, how many people still enjoy watching House after 3 seasons, and haven't been completely turned off by that character?
In your opinion.
In fact Apple sold a lot more Macs in the time frame than Microsoft has sold Xbox.
Lots of the early adopters of Xbox bought it for Halo, do you think they may have bought Macs instead maybe?
Your assumptions are a bit of a stretch.
Not all Macs or Xboxes were sold for the single purpose of playing Halo. Definitely not all Macs were bought to play games at all. I don't know how many "Lots" are, but I doubt as many people would buy a $1000 computer vs a $300 gaming console for a single game.
Halo just worked out great on Xbox, more-so than it would have on a Mac. You can't possibly try to sell me on this idea that the Mac version would have done just as well. That's completely idiotic, to be honest with you.
Oh couldn't agree more. As we all know, Halo struggled on the unsuccessful XBOX Platform. It could of been a major success on the Powerhouse Gaming Platform, the Mac!!
Thanks again for your well thought out and intelligent post!!!
Except when compared to the XBox the Mac IS a far better gaming platform. When you see a game developed properly using OpenGL then have that game play on Windows and Macs then you see the Mac, even with lesser specs, actually out performs the PC.
The XBox is a complete waste of PPC processors and proof that Microsoft doesn't have a clue. Sure Halo did well on the platform but in reality it was only due to the licensing deal with Microsoft who only made the game for XBox. People didn't play it on the Mac because they already played it to death on the XBox so shelling out more money for it later on down the track doesn't make sense.
That being said Halo sucks balls. What the hell is everyone on about thinking it's a great game? It's a steaming pile of dog turds.
good on you jobs. He should be allowed to do that make a good game then let a Microsoft take over. bungie you have fail so bad if you stayed on you will be making lots more money.
You're right, Halo turned out to be a complete failure on the Xbox, a gaming machine. It would have been so much more successful on the Mac, a platform well known for its gaming community.
STOP SPELLING "Mac" IN ALL CAPS!!
Perhaps the poster MEANT to EMPHASIZE the word MAC as opposed to say PC - by using all caps to as you might stress the word in speech - yes I MEANT to say MAC.
Remember, it's always sunshine and rainbows when Apple buys out a developer, but gloom and doom when Microsoft buys out a developer. Never change.
Except when compared to the XBox the Mac IS a far better gaming platform. When you see a game developed properly using OpenGL then have that game play on Windows and Macs then you see the Mac, even with lesser specs, actually out performs the PC.
The XBox is a complete waste of PPC processors and proof that Microsoft doesn't have a clue. Sure Halo did well on the platform but in reality it was only due to the licensing deal with Microsoft who only made the game for XBox. People didn't play it on the Mac because they already played it to death on the XBox so shelling out more money for it later on down the track doesn't make sense.
That being said Halo sucks balls. What the hell is everyone on about thinking it's a great game? It's a steaming pile of dog turds.
KEY PHRASE: "When developed properly."
Also, you only dislike Halo because it was released on the Xbox. You know that had the exact same game been released on a Mac first, you'd be praising it as one of the best and most original games of all time.
It's most definitely true. It was one of the most egregious examples of poaching in the industry.
The first anyone heard of Halo, was when Steve Jobs introduced it on stage at an Apple event. It stunned the crowd because at the time it was beyond leading edge graphics and so forth. He finished the announcement with a statement that it was coming "exclusively to the mac" in the near future.
You don't get any closer to a "done deal" than that, but then Microsoft bought them out from underneath Apple for the express purpose of shutting Apple out.
It was a very dirty deal IMO. I'm not sure who's most at fault, Bungie or Microsoft, but someone (probably lots of someones) seriously compromised their morals with this deal.
How exactly do you figure it was a dirty deal? Microsoft needed a flagship product for their XBOX they offered to buy Bungie and Bungie accepted. No different than Nintendo buying Rare years earlier...
Microsoft managed to bring that game to far more people than it would have seen on a Mac.
Exactly. The Mac does not currently have and will never have the market share that Windows has. Anyone who claims otherwise is completely ignorant of the truth. Had Halo been released either exclusively on the Mac or been on the Mac platform first, it wouldn't have gotten nearly the exposure it ultimately did on the Xbox or PC, and that's a fact. It's not inherently a good or bad fact, it's just the truth: The Mac install base is nowhere near the Windows install base.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Get over it.
Exactly. Is this site really bringing up a story that would have taken place more than a decade ago? Guess what? Halo made its way on the Mac anyway, end of story. In the end, the game got more exposure by being available on multiple platforms, and that's only a good thing.
and where is the Apple Pippin2?
Unless Apple is developing a home console, I don't know what company is gonna write a AAA game made only for the Mac.
And once again, spot on. Developers go where the money is, and there's a lot more money to made developing games for the Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3 then there is for the App Store, where Apple has to manually approve every game and most apps are quite simple in nature.
Steve making an angry call to Microsoft over the Bungie buyout was common news 10 years ago. Why is it being posted today?
Because obviously the fanboys on this site didn't get enough relevant articles today that worship Steve Jobs and Apple so they needed another one. Expect an article tomorrow about Steve Jobs that took place 50 years ago.
How exactly do you figure it was a dirty deal? Microsoft needed a flagship product for their XBOX they offered to buy Bungie and Bungie accepted. No different than Nintendo buying Rare years earlier...
Remember the site you're on. When Microsoft makes a deal to a developer and they accept, it's a terrible, horrible thing. When Apple does exactly the same thing, it's the most wonderful act ever accomplished by humanity.
How many times will we hear about Steve's kurt and inappropriate comments? Is it not enough to be leading one of the highest valued companies? His narcissistic personality was old last century and I can only hope that his "handlers" would get a tighter rein on him. I love their products even though many of them have had to be replaced because of poor quality control. But I am committed to the system and going over to a PC would be counterproductive. So, how about a little more innovation and a little less conversation.
Oh, come on, don't be a little priss. BULLETIN: when any of these guys gets the wool pulled on them, they shout and scream, all of them. If you're so afraid of Daddy, go to therapy.
Perhaps the poster MEANT to EMPHASIZE the word MAC as opposed to say PC - by using all caps to as you might stress the word in speech - yes I MEANT to say MAC.
MAC is the MAC address. Mac is short for Macintosh.
Their lack of support for gaming has always been lamentable. Game Sprockets being the last faltering gesture toward game development on the Mac. Apple blew it completely with OS X and Jobs was behind that management decision.
Even today there is no commitment to the latest GPU technology/drivers or a concerted financial incentive to entice game developers to use OpenGL instead of MS DirectX which would make their games far more platform agnostic.
Just stick to your pretty wee toys Steve. Let MS do what it always does best, support developers, developers, developers.
It's all well and good bragging about the number of developers coding for Apple products but how many of the current innovative indie (like Bungie was in its heyday) or AAA games developers are showing any interest in the Mac?
You're wallowing in cash and some of that could be earmarked for a seriously dedicated Apple Mac gaming division.
Rant off.
how many of the current innovative indie (like Bungie was in its heyday) or AAA games developers are showing any interest in the Mac?
Valve. That's all that matters. Steam's the key to the future of gaming on the Mac. It's only one step, but it's about as good a first step as anyone could have imagined.
Also, force fricking nVidia and AMD to use EFI on their cards and THEN maybe we'd have a larger base.
Valve. That's all that matters. Steam's the key to the future of gaming on the Mac. It's only one step, but it's about as good a first step as anyone could have imagined.
Also, force fricking nVidia and AMD to use EFI on their cards and THEN maybe we'd have a larger base.
Valve is a start. Good as some of them are, it is still only bringing ages old games to the Mac. I have no idea what sort of weight they can apply to developers to look seriously at OS X so long as Jobs has his ambivalent attitude toward gaming. Apparently iToy gaming took Apple by surprise. But anyone who follows gaming knows how big a driving force it is in consumer consciousness. I've known 100's and 100's of people who would have preferred a Mac over a PC if Apple had supported gaming. I'm just one Mac user, we all know PC home users who fire that specific arrow at Apple's Achilles heel.
Apple couldn't force a fart in the gaming community, so it isn't very likely to get nVidia or AMD to cough up for EFI firmware. And Intel have some responsibility to promote EFI over BIOS.
There's probably some sort of deal struck that ensures Apple continues to use Intel CPU's so long as Intel keeps EFI from replacing BIOS in the wider PC market. Apple would hate to see OS X so accessible to Hackintoshists.
Are we sure this story is accurate? All the junk I've read on the web over the decades is that Steve Jobs has been extraordinarily anti-game on the Mac platform. He wanted the Mac to be treated as a serious business machine (for the rest of us?). Hard to believe he'd then have a fit when a gaming vendor left the platform. Then again, he's supposedly a fairly mercurial personality.
On the other hand, it may not have been about games at all. Maybe he just took the whole incident personally, talking up Bungie on stage at Macworld only to see them snatched away by MS.
Apple couldn't force a fart in the gaming community, so it isn't very likely to get nVidia or AMD to cough up for EFI firmware. And Intel have some responsibility to promote EFI over BIOS.
And being on the Blu-ray association's board of directors, doesn't Apple have some responsibility to promote Blu-ray?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/mar/10blu-ray.html
Who are you talking about
The only ones crying today are Microsoft and Bungie.
Certainly not Apple.
How is Bungie crying? Seriously? They're doing QUITE well. They're now a part of Activision (that's another topic of it's own), and they're developing a NEW IP.
Also, a LOT of you seem to have selective memory. The BIG thing about Halo was that it was not the FPS that everyone knows of today UNTIL Bungie began developing on the XBox. At the time, it was primarily being seen as a third person shooter. Before that? Halo was a real-time strategy.
All of the success that Bungie had on Halo as we know it today DID NOT OCCUR until it was being developed on the XBox.
w00master
And being on the Blu-ray association's board of directors, doesn't Apple have some responsibility to promote Blu-ray?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/mar/10blu-ray.html
I've never been convinced by Blu-ray on home PC's. The HDTV standard isn't?and now there's bloody nonsense 3D to contend with! TV's come in all resolutions. I think dedicated Blu-ray players, coupled with 720 streaming, is the way ahead (for the foreseeable future).
People gladly accept MP3 and AAC for audio, and, though part of a whole, human ears are less easily deceived than eyes. I've watched HD and conventional versions of the same film and HD made not the slightest difference to the quality of the film.
I do believe it would have been a bag of hurt but I also think that whilst I believe it was not right for home computers, Apple should have made it an option. BTO, you'd pay more, but you'd get what you want and not what Steve thinks you ought to have.
I still think it ironic that Steve thinks its alright for him to replace and upgrade bits of his body but refuses Mac customers the same privileges with their computers. Just what would he have done if he'd had to choose between hospitals run by Apple, MS or Google?