Well, I'm no expert(I'm the one that plays the games, not develops them), but I think that OS X's powerful graphics technologies play a big part. Also, developers used to programming for other *nix flavors will feel more at home with OS X.
Well, I'm no expert(I'm the one that plays the games, not develops them), but I think that OS X's powerful graphics technologies play a big part. Also, developers used to programming for other *nix flavors will feel more at home with OS X.
well, while true, if you knew the landscape of *nix game programmers, you would realize the silliness of that comment. *nix aint no gaming os. they have like tetris and tictactoe, not many big-name games.
one of the big marks against the mac platform in terms of game production is that many game developers use ms' proprietary directx sdk. it only works with windows. opengl works on just about anything thats a computer. so when a game uses dx, they have to convert a lot (a LOT) of code over to ogl.
Quote:
Originally posted by ast3r3x
...i thought cocoa was supposed to be able to let you create programs faster then with other codes...or is that just propaganda i remember reading?
cocoa is more of a gui thing. when ur in a fps, you aren't really dealing with the platform's gui. for example, how many fps games use aqua buttons for the x version, and nasty ass windows style buttons for their windows version? there are cocoa pieces to deal with the nitty gritty deep parts, but dealing with those would mean adding another language (objective-c) into the project. also, the deep down stuff has likely already been written by the game publisher in c/c++ (or whatever their game is in), so porting it to objc isn't really necessary.
*nix aint no gaming os. they have like tetris and tictactoe, not many big-name games
Hmmm. Almost all of id's games are supported *nix, Unreal as I recall is, too. In my limited opinion, I think that Linux should be THE gaming OS, because it supports so many platforms. That way developers would only have to develop for a single OS. But this would be annoying (having to boot into Linux just to play?!) and would shut out less tech-savvy gamers looking to play Bugdom.
Hmmm. Almost all of id's games are supported *nix, Unreal as I recall is, too. In my limited opinion, I think that Linux should be THE gaming OS, because it supports so many platforms. That way developers would only have to develop for a single OS. But this would be annoying (having to boot into Linux just to play?!) and would shut out less tech-savvy gamers looking to play Bugdom.
i sit corrected. i didn't realize that id ported their games to linux. i thought their games (like doom, d2) were done by independant programmers. and, i'm pretty sure that its a delay release, like we get on macs, though. not a linux-first kind of deal. when people develop games, they dont tend to think, 'which os could hit the most platforms' they tend to think, 'which os has the largest userbase'.
john carmack (lead prog'r at id) said, "the linux market is not viable for game developers to pursue. linux ports will be done out of good will, not profit moves."
But wouldn't it be great to have a cross-platfor gaming OS? One that PCs, Macs, and even consoles could run? That way, buying a console would only be a consideration of price and power, not game availability.
Id do almost all their own programming, or all of it - they might have subcontracted something out, but I can't remember. When Carmack calls OS X the ultimate game development platform, it's important to remember how he does game development: Cross-platform code to the greatest extent possible; OpenGL only (no DirectX or anything like it); hand-rolled, cross-platform networking code. I remember him remarking that porting Q3 to OS X meant changing about 2% of the codebase. So, for his purposes it's as good as it gets. Development houses that use DirectX, or use Borland products to write toolsets, or write MS C++ rather than standard C++, obviously have a different view of OS X.
Writing cross-platform games for simultaneous release is not hard. It's just not done.
As for the idea of Linux as a platform-independent gaming platform, there are way too many variables. First of all, one of the things that makes OS X so attractive to Carmack is the OS-level OpenGL - on other platforms the GPU driver provides the OpenGL implementation, and they vary significantly. Then there's the obvious problem of different executable formats and ISAs: A totally cross-platform game would have to be shipped as code and built for each machine it would run on, accounting for all the possible targets (I'd love to see that makefile!).
The whole appeal of consoles, from a game development point of view, is that the hardware is totally consistent. You can write code knowing in absolute terms what it will run on, which makes life much, much easier.
Halo was an utterly fantastic game when I played it.....19 months ago.
Gaming has moved on. Halo 2, Deus Ex 2 and Doom 3 are where it's at, now. Though Halo 2 has been delayed due to Microsoft's wise decision to tell Bungie to ship it "when it's done".
Halo was an utterly fantastic game when I played it.....19 months ago.
Gaming has moved on. Halo 2, Deus Ex 2 and Doom 3 are where it's at, now. Though Halo 2 has been delayed due to Microsoft's wise decision to tell Bungie to ship it "when it's done".
According to Microsoft, Halo 2 won't be coming out for the PC, ever. It's being exclusively developed for the XBox. Jerks.
According to Microsoft, Halo 2 won't be coming out for the PC, ever. It's being exclusively developed for the XBox. Jerks.
Bah, a lot of people act like Microsoft is the first console developer to buy out a competitor and make its games exclusive to one platform. The likes of Nintendo have been doing it for years.
It sucks for the Mac, but the blame for barely-there support for the game community can be placed squarely on Apple's shoulders.
Despite my distate for Microsoft, I find myself giving it money due to its ability to nuture a platform that has the games I want to play and services that I find incredibly useful. (i.e: XBox Live - it is as good as they say it is) Games that would either not be availible on a PC or would require a rather expensive PC to run, end up on the Xbox with little or no performance difference. Morrowind for example was and is considered better on the Xbox than the PC. This doesn't mean the Xbox is the greatest thing ever, nor does it mean that all other consoles are crap. It does mean, however, that Microsoft has been able to do more for gaming in the past 2 years than Apple has been able to do in the past 10.
Comments
Originally posted by Placebo
Well, I'm no expert(I'm the one that plays the games, not develops them), but I think that OS X's powerful graphics technologies play a big part. Also, developers used to programming for other *nix flavors will feel more at home with OS X.
well, while true, if you knew the landscape of *nix game programmers, you would realize the silliness of that comment. *nix aint no gaming os. they have like tetris and tictactoe, not many big-name games.
one of the big marks against the mac platform in terms of game production is that many game developers use ms' proprietary directx sdk. it only works with windows. opengl works on just about anything thats a computer. so when a game uses dx, they have to convert a lot (a LOT) of code over to ogl.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
...i thought cocoa was supposed to be able to let you create programs faster then with other codes...or is that just propaganda i remember reading?
cocoa is more of a gui thing. when ur in a fps, you aren't really dealing with the platform's gui. for example, how many fps games use aqua buttons for the x version, and nasty ass windows style buttons for their windows version? there are cocoa pieces to deal with the nitty gritty deep parts, but dealing with those would mean adding another language (objective-c) into the project. also, the deep down stuff has likely already been written by the game publisher in c/c++ (or whatever their game is in), so porting it to objc isn't really necessary.
*nix aint no gaming os. they have like tetris and tictactoe, not many big-name games
Hmmm. Almost all of id's games are supported *nix, Unreal as I recall is, too. In my limited opinion, I think that Linux should be THE gaming OS, because it supports so many platforms. That way developers would only have to develop for a single OS. But this would be annoying (having to boot into Linux just to play?!) and would shut out less tech-savvy gamers looking to play Bugdom.
Originally posted by Placebo
Hmmm. Almost all of id's games are supported *nix, Unreal as I recall is, too. In my limited opinion, I think that Linux should be THE gaming OS, because it supports so many platforms. That way developers would only have to develop for a single OS. But this would be annoying (having to boot into Linux just to play?!) and would shut out less tech-savvy gamers looking to play Bugdom.
i sit corrected. i didn't realize that id ported their games to linux. i thought their games (like doom, d2) were done by independant programmers. and, i'm pretty sure that its a delay release, like we get on macs, though. not a linux-first kind of deal. when people develop games, they dont tend to think, 'which os could hit the most platforms' they tend to think, 'which os has the largest userbase'.
john carmack (lead prog'r at id) said, "the linux market is not viable for game developers to pursue. linux ports will be done out of good will, not profit moves."
Writing cross-platform games for simultaneous release is not hard. It's just not done.
As for the idea of Linux as a platform-independent gaming platform, there are way too many variables. First of all, one of the things that makes OS X so attractive to Carmack is the OS-level OpenGL - on other platforms the GPU driver provides the OpenGL implementation, and they vary significantly. Then there's the obvious problem of different executable formats and ISAs: A totally cross-platform game would have to be shipped as code and built for each machine it would run on, accounting for all the possible targets (I'd love to see that makefile!).
The whole appeal of consoles, from a game development point of view, is that the hardware is totally consistent. You can write code knowing in absolute terms what it will run on, which makes life much, much easier.
Gaming has moved on. Halo 2, Deus Ex 2 and Doom 3 are where it's at, now. Though Halo 2 has been delayed due to Microsoft's wise decision to tell Bungie to ship it "when it's done".
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo
Halo was an utterly fantastic game when I played it.....19 months ago.
Gaming has moved on. Halo 2, Deus Ex 2 and Doom 3 are where it's at, now. Though Halo 2 has been delayed due to Microsoft's wise decision to tell Bungie to ship it "when it's done".
According to Microsoft, Halo 2 won't be coming out for the PC, ever. It's being exclusively developed for the XBox. Jerks.
Originally posted by Kecksy
According to Microsoft, Halo 2 won't be coming out for the PC, ever. It's being exclusively developed for the XBox. Jerks.
Bah, a lot of people act like Microsoft is the first console developer to buy out a competitor and make its games exclusive to one platform. The likes of Nintendo have been doing it for years.
It sucks for the Mac, but the blame for barely-there support for the game community can be placed squarely on Apple's shoulders.
Despite my distate for Microsoft, I find myself giving it money due to its ability to nuture a platform that has the games I want to play and services that I find incredibly useful. (i.e: XBox Live - it is as good as they say it is) Games that would either not be availible on a PC or would require a rather expensive PC to run, end up on the Xbox with little or no performance difference. Morrowind for example was and is considered better on the Xbox than the PC. This doesn't mean the Xbox is the greatest thing ever, nor does it mean that all other consoles are crap. It does mean, however, that Microsoft has been able to do more for gaming in the past 2 years than Apple has been able to do in the past 10.