No UT03 Plan is Bad for Mac

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
According to a <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0208/05.ut2k3.php"; target="_blank">Maccentral article</a> the folks at Epic aren't even considering a Mac version of the highly anticipated game Unreal Tournament 2003.



Considering that this is practially a staple on every Mac gaming machine, this is surprising and kinda depressing. I'm not a big gamer and I won't miss the game if it doesn't come out (which I'd bet it eventually will), but if Epic isn't even planning a Mac version of this incredibly popular game, where is the incentive for developers to produce less popular games?

Or other software for that matter?



Among the reason for having no Mac version planned Epic cited (1) the "fractured" situation between OS9 and OSX, and (2) the game's dependance on Microsoft's Direct3D (Macs use OpenGL).



A while back the Mac gaming market seemed to be making a comeback, and I think it was UT for Mac that was released within a couple weeks of the PC version. No we're not even on the drawing board.



Oh well, Thank God for Pangea Soft.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    I have a PC that I run games like this on. The real showdown will be DOOM III versus UT2003. It sucks because I'm an UT fan but I'm glad to have %50.
  • Reply 2 of 30
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    this is totally utterly bad news. I cant believe it if they wont come out on Mac.



    Then again, seeing Glenda Adam's work with UT in general, Im not ALL that surprised. How BADLY can you code that you cant get a 2+ year old game to still not get above 20-30fps on even the highest end Mac?



    Sure, Ive been playing UT since it first came out and overall its more than playable... but yeeeesh. Come on.



    Then again maybe I shouldnt care all that much seeing I will be buying a PC in a few months for my hardcore gaming needs. I aint gonna spend 3k$ for a machine that can get the same if not better results (PC) that I can spend 800$ on. Duh. My iBook is fun n all that... but WC3 along with heavier stuff is just aint my cup o tea performance wise
  • Reply 3 of 30
    a2daja2daj Posts: 30member
    [quote]Originally posted by ZO:

    <strong>this is totally utterly bad news. I cant believe it if they wont come out on Mac.



    Then again, seeing Glenda Adam's work with UT in general, Im not ALL that surprised. How BADLY can you code that you cant get a 2+ year old game to still not get above 20-30fps on even the highest end Mac?



    Sure, Ive been playing UT since it first came out and overall its more than playable... but yeeeesh. Come on.



    Then again maybe I shouldnt care all that much seeing I will be buying a PC in a few months for my hardcore gaming needs. I aint gonna spend 3k$ for a machine that can get the same if not better results (PC) that I can spend 800$ on. Duh. My iBook is fun n all that... but WC3 along with heavier stuff is just aint my cup o tea performance wise</strong><hr></blockquote>



    UT in general runs just fine on Macs, unless you have an NVIDIA card. Then blame Apple/NVIDIA for having crap drivers. Apple's OpenGL was in still in pretty bad shape when the last official UT update was released. And NVIDIA wasn't a major player in Apple's video card lineup. So it's not like Westlake could spend a lot of their free time trying to work around driver problems.

    I've run UT with 3dfx and ATI cards and performance has been great.
  • Reply 4 of 30
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    Epic doesn't make Macintosh games. Some Macintosh porting house would end up porting UT 2003 if it's going to happen, but I really don't care anyway since Epic's game engines suck ass compared to id's engines.
  • Reply 5 of 30
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    you fail to see the problem if UT2k3 doesnt get ported to MacOS... there are DOZENS of other games that have liscesed the engine for their own games. DeusEx, Rune, StarTrek, etc were all based on the UT engine... and therefore found their way onto MacOS.



    UT2k3 looks AMAZING. I have spent MONTHS playing UT against friends over the years. If you just want a quick fun game to frag eachother, UT is the way to go. Q3 is good too... but still, UT seems to be funner in the end. Nice big outdoor maps... CTF, Assault, DM. Plus there is StrikeForce which is SO much better that Urban Terror for Q3. Although there is no OS X launcher for SF yet... grrrr
  • Reply 6 of 30
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I hear that ZO. For some reason UT just feels better. Plus I tried Quake III once on my B&W G3 300 and Quake III performance was a joke.



    UT is fine with an ol' Rage 128, what's everyone talking about?



    And I need my StarTrek games, too. Man this IS bad news, indeed Mac developers are dropping like flies, there's no way around it. No wonder Apple's on a such a buying zeal.
  • Reply 7 of 30
    a2daja2daj Posts: 30member
    Do it yourself UT mod launchers via AppleScript:



    set something to "Entry.unr INI=:Infiltrationx.ini USERINI=:InfiltrationUser.ini log=:Infiltrationx.log"



    tell application "Unreal Tournament OS X"

    run params something

    activate

    end tell



    Modify the .ini and log files to whatever mod you want. I even have a version for Unreal Tournament X using UnrealTournamentX.ini and UserX.ini. That way I never have to mess with .ini files when I'm in OS 9 or OS X and need a quick fix of UT.



    [ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: a2daj ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 30
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    No Deus Ex 2?! Curse your name to hell Epic games!



    We need UT2003! Come on Deus Ex 2 on a console will be a joke!
  • Reply 9 of 30
    blizaineblizaine Posts: 239member
    I don't see why Apple doesn't buy a Mac Game porting house (ie. Westlake) and just port every COOL game that comes out for PC.



  • Reply 10 of 30
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    UT performance is a joke compared to Q3. I was running Q3 on a 233Mhz G3 much faster than UT ran on much faster systems. UT does run better with a Voodoo card, but they're out of business, so who cares?



    Also, the fact that you need to **** with .ini files is just one of many signs of the weak engine design.



    The map designs are imaginative, but don't play well for deathmatch. Too slow paced. The boys at epic also don't really think much of game balance and just went for flashy and gimmicky things. It did work, it caught on and sold, but it's like the Windows of FPS games.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    cindercinder Posts: 381member
    I prefer UT over Q3 any day for gameplay.



    The games run the same on my system, G4-450/ati Rage AGP 16MB so I can't vouch fo rlackluster performance on faster systems . . .



    All I can say is "WHAT?!"



    I took it for granted that they would just be making a Mac version like last time.



    I think the 'fracture' they're talking about is silly.

    Make it for OS X. Period.



    Jon Carmack took all of 2 minutes to decide that one - he hates OS9. Not a tough decision - AND it gives incentive for people to move over to it. (AND to buy new Powermacs!)



    Extremely disappointing.



    I guess it's obvious that id will be winning this battle - since Epic isn't even playing.
  • Reply 12 of 30
    xaqtlyxaqtly Posts: 450member
    I agree... Not doing UT2k3 for the Mac would be a big mistake, partially because of the userbase they've accumulated from doing UT on the Mac previously. Just make it for OS X and be done with it. OS 9 is dead for developers anyway, according to Steve-o... take it to heart and run with the OS X version. I want UT2k3 very badly, and I'm not about to buy a PC just to play it. Take a hint, guys.
  • Reply 13 of 30
    Unreal Tourney buries Quake III.



    Quake III is laughabley 'unreal'. People moving around with super human speed. It's ridiculous. With 'slippery sprite syndrome'. Quake III isn't a patch on Quake I or II in my book. It's repetitive and samey..squat and 'compact' level design...somewhat uninspired. And this from the 'masters' of FPS'S? Some of the graphics, however, are superior to Unreal Tourney. The character 'still' art is superb. Characters are overall, with better graphics. Stunning. However, the in game graphics and playability suck - no better than Tourney by any stretch. And the 'Thing on a Spring' idea is bunny rabbit with a BFG. POOR.



    There's nothing in Quake III that beats the Unreal solo game...especially the inspired 'Train' level. I think the weapons are far 'paced' than QIII which is basically get shotgun or BFG and 'Oh...I'm dead. Oh. I'm dead. Oh. I died even quicker that time...'



    Kwee is hyperkinetic. IT IS THE 'windows' of FPSs in my book.



    The levels, characters, feel of weapons, the game and types of game in Unreal Tourney are better in my opinion. The weapons in Kwee are so one dimensional after Tourney!



    Some people prefer Qiii (Kweee)...but I don't see why. Unreal Tournement is compelling and is still the first person shooter to beat in my book. But hey...I'm out of date...maybe Max in Pain and castle Wolfagain will change my mind



    Hopefully, Id will get back to their roots with Doom III. Looks a cracker. We'll see. If its anything like the first two in atmosphere...



    As for Mac framerates, I dunno. Only played both on PC. I can't see a Geforce 4 titanium struggling with Unreal Tourney.



    Developers going down? Like who? We lost Bungie to a cheeky buyout. Maybe Apple should retaliate and buy out Epic Games?



    Aw come on...Unreal 2003 will come, Macsoft will pick it up eventually. I'm sure Epic will be grateful of the bonus royalties when 'X' hits five million users at the end of the year. Fracture indeed. That's not stopping Castle Wolfey and co...coming to the Mac.



    In fact, I can't remember the last time we had this amount of the latest games on the Mac. Can anybody remember a better time? And they're only going to get easier to port.



    With 25 million users out there... I can't believe with the bulk of graphics/game engine and development work done that companies wouldn't view a tweaky recompile as worth it.



    I'd focus on Doom III. You probably won't notice 2003 aint there...



    Lemon BOn Bon
  • Reply 14 of 30
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:

    <strong>Unreal Tourney buries Quake III.



    Quake III is laughabley 'unreal'. People moving around with super human speed. It's ridiculous. With 'slippery sprite syndrome'. Quake III isn't a patch on Quake I or II in my book. It's repetitive and samey..squat and 'compact' level design...somewhat uninspired. And this from the 'masters' of FPS'S? Some of the graphics, however, are superior to Unreal Tourney. The character 'still' art is superb. Characters are overall, with better graphics. Stunning. However, the in game graphics and playability suck - no better than Tourney by any stretch. And the 'Thing on a Spring' idea is bunny rabbit with a BFG. POOR.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think that they both have their weaknesses and strengths.



    [quote]<strong>

    There's nothing in Quake III that beats the Unreal solo game...especially the inspired 'Train' level. I think the weapons are far 'paced' than QIII which is basically get shotgun or BFG and 'Oh...I'm dead. Oh. I'm dead. Oh. I died even quicker that time...'

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Some people are into the 'mindless killing'. It's something that you can come to at the end of the day and you don't have to think, just react. This is unlike CounterStrike where tactics pay off more. And yes, Unreal Tourney has better bots than Q3.





    [quote]<strong>

    The levels, characters, feel of weapons, the game and types of game in Unreal Tourney are better in my opinion. The weapons in Kwee are so one dimensional after Tourney!

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    As I said, Q3 is just mindless running around. Granted that there is some strategy, but it's nice to just run around shooting things, and not be worried about the 'realism' of the game.



    [quote]<strong>

    Some people prefer Qiii (Kweee)...but I don't see why. Unreal Tournement is compelling and is still the first person shooter to beat in my book. But hey...I'm out of date...maybe Max in Pain and castle Wolfagain will change my mind

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wolfenstein is good for single player but I don't like the multiplayer. The game engine seems like it's Q3 but it's 'off' though.



    [quote]<strong>

    Hopefully, Id will get back to their roots with Doom III. Looks a cracker. We'll see. If its anything like the first two in atmosphere...

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Doom has and always will rule. Doom and Wolf3d.



    [quote]<strong>

    Developers going down? Like who? We lost Bungie to a cheeky buyout. Maybe Apple should retaliate and buy out Epic Games?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple seems more interested in improving OS X and buying out professional software companies (as in companies that produce professional software tools). No doubt, that would be cool, but I don't see it happening.



    [quote]<strong>

    Aw come on...Unreal 2003 will come, Macsoft will pick it up eventually. I'm sure Epic will be grateful of the bonus royalties when 'X' hits five million users at the end of the year. Fracture indeed. That's not stopping Castle Wolfey and co...coming to the Mac.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    True dat ... True dat...



    [quote]<strong>

    In fact, I can't remember the last time we had this amount of the latest games on the Mac. Can anybody remember a better time? And they're only going to get easier to port.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm sure that when Apple computers were the only personal computers, before windows or IBM PCs, most of the games were on Apple computers. Aside from the console games like Atari and Intellivision.



    [quote]<strong>

    With 25 million users out there... I can't believe with the bulk of graphics/game engine and development work done that companies wouldn't view a tweaky recompile as worth it.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Unreal 2003 will be using DirectX. With all the new programability in DirectX 8.0 for shaders and such. It's hardly 'a recomile' to get it on OS X. Especially since OpenGL doesn't have the 2.0 standard pounded out yet.



    [quote]<strong>

    I'd focus on Doom III. You probably won't notice 2003 aint there...



    Lemon BOn Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Doom 3 is OpenGL to my knowledge so Mac porting isn't as hard as for a DirectX native program.
  • Reply 15 of 30
    xaqtlyxaqtly Posts: 450member
    At this point I really can't see never having UT2k3... but what's ridiculous is how they have such doubt about profitability, whether the conversion work will be worth it... etc. etc. It's as if they're totally unaware that Jobs is trying to get Windows users to switch to the Mac. If they thought about it, they would know that UT2k3 by itself would be a motivator for some people, if rumors about upcoming Mac hardware and ATi/nVidia hardware are even partially true.



    And that's without even taking into account the large number of Mac users who play UT, who all want the new version. I mean what does it take, a boot to the head? Maybe they should be talking to Carmack.
  • Reply 16 of 30
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    rogue27 Q3 is MUCH slower than UT on my B&W G3 300. Sorry, just the facts. This is good because I prefer UT. And I hate M$/Direct X! It's not FAIR! ARGH!
  • Reply 17 of 30
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    the fact that UT2k3 is based on DirectX is a moot point. Just recently there was a company that was offering the complete 'translation' of D3D for porters. Not only that, but most porting houses already have a pretty damn big and vast library of their own.



    UT2k3 WILL come to Mac... i just hope it doesnt take from here to forever to happen
  • Reply 18 of 30
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by ZO:

    <strong>the fact that UT2k3 is based on DirectX is a moot point. Just recently there was a company that was offering the complete 'translation' of D3D for porters. Not only that, but most porting houses already have a pretty damn big and vast library of their own.



    UT2k3 WILL come to Mac... i just hope it doesnt take from here to forever to happen</strong><hr></blockquote>



    These are some of the first games to take advantage of the new programmable pixel shaders in DX8 and 8.1. I doubt that the porting houses have a library to port these over. I'm no expert so maybe it is easy to port the pixel shaders to OpenGL, but the fact that OpenGL doesn't have programmable pixel shader support causes me to consider otherwise.



    I think that UT2k3 will have to wait for the OpenGL 2.0 standard to finally be hammered out and all the MS issues about OpenGL copying it's patents on pixel shaders and shit like that resolved.



    You have to keep in mind that the new features that are emerging in DX aren't in OpenGL yet and you can't directly port it over to my knowledge. And if you can it's prolly a b*tch to do.
  • Reply 19 of 30
    a2daja2daj Posts: 30member
    I've heard rumors that 10.2's OpenGL has the pixel shader stuff implemented. NVIDIA was showing off their cards with 10.2 a few weeks ago weren't they? I believe they had the pixel shader demos running.
  • Reply 20 of 30
    "I'm sure that when Apple computers were the only personal computers, before windows or IBM PCs, most of the games were on Apple computers. "



    You're damn right there. You got me there.



    Long time ago, eh? When C64 dinosaurs ruled the Earth...



    Ah...those were the days...we're betraying our age here, eh?







    Lemon Bon Bon



    For Unreal Tourney fans: Macuser has Unreal Tourney in their top ten Mac games! (Kweee doesn't get a look in...)
Sign In or Register to comment.