Curmudgeon Gamer
15 August 2007
Apple to 3D gamers: Shove off.
I've been following a thread running through Macrumors.com regarding recent Barefeats tests that have the old iMac revision trouncing the new, aluminum versions when it comes to gaming, and the deal has to be interpreted as Apple really doesn't give a rip about 3D gamers on the Mac. (And I do mean trouncing. Quake 4 fps dropped from 71 to 29. Doom 3 from 84 to 58. Halo from 90 to 40. Good stuff for those who waited to upgrade, right?)
This has happened before within the last month with MacBook Pros. There, the excuse was that the drivers sux0rz'd, and were quickly, but silently, updated. From Mac Rumors:
Apple seems happy to cut corners in the 3D game performance category, and the procrastination hurts. They've now purposefully (and, I suppose, we can more safely conjecture Apple may have done it purposefully the first time with MacBook Pros as well) allowed, even caused, embarrassingly shoddy benchmarks to be taken and posted on well-respected sites with the new iMac, and their willingness to take their lumps on that front shows that high-end, 3D game performance means bupkiss for Apple's QA process and, I'll extend, their corporate culture. If gaming was a priority internally, these sorts of benchmarks would never be taken. At the very least, there would be a warning from Apple to expect less than stellar performance as they continued to "Work Diligently (c)1850" on a solution.
Thanks for the finger, Apple. By the way, where's our Madden?
MacMadden-related Update: I've been half-heartedly Googling off and on for the last week for news on MacMadden 08, and appreciate InsideMacGames.com's owner, Tuncer, blogging regarding the delay. I'll give him a heck of a lot of credit for 1.) Predicting this one at some level and 2.) Calling EA out publicly for the horrible feedback they've given him as the owner of the major Mac games sales website (though Tuncer also credits Peter Cohen, the last surviving Mac Games journalist, for calling them out in a MacWorld piece first).
Just for fun, I'll add this snippet from Tuncer's IMG blog on MacMadden's MIA-ness:
This has happened before within the last month with MacBook Pros. There, the excuse was that the drivers sux0rz'd, and were quickly, but silently, updated. From Mac Rumors:
While Apple does not elaborate on the contents of the update, an analysis of the update package indicates that it contains improvements to the graphics subsystem, with updated nVidia graphics drivers and some updated OpenGL components. Some initial benchmarks of the updated MacBook Pros had indicated some graphics scores lower than its predeccesor [sic].
Apple seems happy to cut corners in the 3D game performance category, and the procrastination hurts. They've now purposefully (and, I suppose, we can more safely conjecture Apple may have done it purposefully the first time with MacBook Pros as well) allowed, even caused, embarrassingly shoddy benchmarks to be taken and posted on well-respected sites with the new iMac, and their willingness to take their lumps on that front shows that high-end, 3D game performance means bupkiss for Apple's QA process and, I'll extend, their corporate culture. If gaming was a priority internally, these sorts of benchmarks would never be taken. At the very least, there would be a warning from Apple to expect less than stellar performance as they continued to "Work Diligently (c)1850" on a solution.
Thanks for the finger, Apple. By the way, where's our Madden?
MacMadden-related Update: I've been half-heartedly Googling off and on for the last week for news on MacMadden 08, and appreciate InsideMacGames.com's owner, Tuncer, blogging regarding the delay. I'll give him a heck of a lot of credit for 1.) Predicting this one at some level and 2.) Calling EA out publicly for the horrible feedback they've given him as the owner of the major Mac games sales website (though Tuncer also credits Peter Cohen, the last surviving Mac Games journalist, for calling them out in a MacWorld piece first).
Just for fun, I'll add this snippet from Tuncer's IMG blog on MacMadden's MIA-ness:
EA needs a wake up call.[emph and chuckle mine]
...
Second. A 3 month Apple exclusive on the first four titles is just plain stupid. EA's games should be available to everyone, not just Apple stores, when they finally launch. Imagine going to Macgamestore.com or Amazon or whatever, and not being able to find these titles.
--ruffin at 21:09
Comment
[ 3 ]
17 June 2007
idTech 5 on Apple Because of Next?
Macworld's Peter Cohen writes:
Anybody know the skinny on this one? Personally I'm not sure why Carmack continues to use OpenGL and friends. Familiarity? Ability to change the standards to conform to his needs at the bleeding edge? An ir/rational dislike of Microsoft?
With "idTech 5", id finally seems to be admitting that it's not about the game; it's the engine technology, stupid. Is OpenGL easier to port to PS3? Because otherwise, I'm lost beyond the reasons I mentioned, above, for id to use it and, with it, for Macs and friends to be supported.
And I'm pretty sure Carmack's not using Open GL because of Next.
Carmack's interest in the Mac market is understandable. For one thing, he's an experienced NextStep developer. NextStep is the operating system that Mac OS X owes its core foundation to, and Carmack used it to help develop the original Doom and Quake games.
Anybody know the skinny on this one? Personally I'm not sure why Carmack continues to use OpenGL and friends. Familiarity? Ability to change the standards to conform to his needs at the bleeding edge? An ir/rational dislike of Microsoft?
With "idTech 5", id finally seems to be admitting that it's not about the game; it's the engine technology, stupid. Is OpenGL easier to port to PS3? Because otherwise, I'm lost beyond the reasons I mentioned, above, for id to use it and, with it, for Macs and friends to be supported.
And I'm pretty sure Carmack's not using Open GL because of Next.
--ruffin at 18:14
Comment
[ 3 ]
12 June 2007
More Curmudgeonly Comments About Mac Game Journalism
I like Inside Mac Games a lot. That quick apology aside, ethically they're still giving me fits. I remain extremely concerned with the extreme integration between Inside Mac Games and macgamestore.com, and the site's large, advert/header banner continues to be "sponsored" by the store that shares an owner, no, IS owned by the "news" site. That IMG hocks the same stuff it purports to "review," a word which implies a degree of fairness and impartiality to me, isn't news to most IMG readers, I wouldn't believe. Still, it's unethical for a site doing gaming news and reviews to sell those same games.[1]
I wonder if some of this proverbial incestuous dilemma accounts for the recent disconnect between the content of IMG's RSS feed and the content of one of the features it advertises, IMG's editor's latest blog entry. You'd expect the RSS feed and the article to match up. I don't think they do.
From the feed:
From Tuncer's Blog:
If you've known about it for weeks, it's not a surprise. If you've known about it for weeks, where is our news? Dang it, folk, if you're simply pandering to sources, withholding information until they believe it's time for it to be made public, they're not your sources, you're their shills.
I believe we've had some discussion about NDAs and their effect on journalism -- um, killing it -- before.
Why didn't Tuncer tell us about the announcement weeks ago? If Inside Mac Games is that the best Mac game news outlets have to offer, which I believe it is, we've got another classic case of IMG's predilection for "journaltisement".
So just for fun, let's end with our standard mantra: Buy used books, get your games at Ambrosia, and when you're riding your bike at night, always, always wear white.
[1] At times, I've seen advertisements for games on this site. I don't see a dime of that ad revenue. I think Matt might fairly literally see a dime, but will let him deal with any ethics violations there himself after saying that I'm 99.44% confident he doesn't pick what runs, and I know (hope?!) he doesn't get a percentage of each sale from those stores.
I wonder if some of this proverbial incestuous dilemma accounts for the recent disconnect between the content of IMG's RSS feed and the content of one of the features it advertises, IMG's editor's latest blog entry. You'd expect the RSS feed and the article to match up. I don't think they do.
From the feed:
IMG's founder Tuncer Deniz weighs in on today's surprise announcement made by Electronic Arts. Although he's estatic [sic] with the six titles announced, he questions whether EA will be happy. Will EA be in it for the long haul or is this just another "experiment". [sic](emphasis mine; comments about Bolivia nearly resisted)
From Tuncer's Blog:
A few weeks ago I learned of EA's intention to bring some of their game titles to the Mac and since then I've been wrestling with the consequences and impact of EA's 'renewed' commitment to the Mac.(emphasis again mine)
If you've known about it for weeks, it's not a surprise. If you've known about it for weeks, where is our news? Dang it, folk, if you're simply pandering to sources, withholding information until they believe it's time for it to be made public, they're not your sources, you're their shills.
I believe we've had some discussion about NDAs and their effect on journalism -- um, killing it -- before.
Why didn't Tuncer tell us about the announcement weeks ago? If Inside Mac Games is that the best Mac game news outlets have to offer, which I believe it is, we've got another classic case of IMG's predilection for "journaltisement".
So just for fun, let's end with our standard mantra: Buy used books, get your games at Ambrosia, and when you're riding your bike at night, always, always wear white.
[1] At times, I've seen advertisements for games on this site. I don't see a dime of that ad revenue. I think Matt might fairly literally see a dime, but will let him deal with any ethics violations there himself after saying that I'm 99.44% confident he doesn't pick what runs, and I know (hope?!) he doesn't get a percentage of each sale from those stores.
Labels: apple, ethics, img, journaltisement
--ruffin at 17:25
Comment
[ 5 ]
11 June 2007
Cider? You cider, you brought...
From MacWorld's coverage of the recent Apple developers' conference:
To me, that's the most interesting news short of Windows Safari and the "built-in" Vista drivers.
So how is EA getting those games onto the Mac? Inside Mac Games gives us a good hunch:
That there would be no PowerPC compatibility was a no-brainer. Proof? I figured it out. That they would use Cider wasn't quite as obvious, though one might argue it was close. (Tiger Woods had been ported recently, I believe. The rest? Forget it.)
I'm eager to hear the official jvm slant on that one.
Update: No longer a hunch, it would appear: Aspyr's Brad Oliver says it's Cider on the IMG forums. Interesting that it appears Aspyr will continue porting the Sims (no reason to throw out ported engine at this point? Wonder if it'll drop away with a major Sims update...). He also says that the sports games and BF1942 didn't do well enough for Aspyr to keep porting.
As he says, that old ports of those games didn't do well is old news, but how does this striate Mac game development now? There are games that get ignored, the Cider treatment, and the red carpet port now? That one can Cider a game playably apparently much more cheaply than porting it says something bad about Asypr's porting future.
What's more, EA will be bringing sports games to the Mac in August, beginning with simultaneous launches of Madden 08 and Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08.
To me, that's the most interesting news short of Windows Safari and the "built-in" Vista drivers.
So how is EA getting those games onto the Mac? Inside Mac Games gives us a good hunch:
According to our sources, EA is using TransGaming's Cider for its Mac titles. This means that there will be no PowerPC versions of the games.
That there would be no PowerPC compatibility was a no-brainer. Proof? I figured it out. That they would use Cider wasn't quite as obvious, though one might argue it was close. (Tiger Woods had been ported recently, I believe. The rest? Forget it.)
I'm eager to hear the official jvm slant on that one.
Update: No longer a hunch, it would appear: Aspyr's Brad Oliver says it's Cider on the IMG forums. Interesting that it appears Aspyr will continue porting the Sims (no reason to throw out ported engine at this point? Wonder if it'll drop away with a major Sims update...). He also says that the sports games and BF1942 didn't do well enough for Aspyr to keep porting.
As he says, that old ports of those games didn't do well is old news, but how does this striate Mac game development now? There are games that get ignored, the Cider treatment, and the red carpet port now? That one can Cider a game playably apparently much more cheaply than porting it says something bad about Asypr's porting future.
--ruffin at 16:19
Comment
[ 3 ]
06 March 2007
Say hello to my little console, friend.
Mac Rumors reports some interesting strings from the newest version of iTunes:
'Are you sure you want to sync games? All existing games on the Apple TV XXX will be replaced with games from this iTunes library.' and 'Some of the games in your iTunes library were not copied to the Apple TV XXX because they cannot be played on this Apple TV.' are further confirmation of comments by PopCap VP Greg Canessa indicating that the Apple TV would indeed support games.
In the latest issue of PC Gamer, the top ten games of the year went something like, "WoW, Sims, Sims, something else that's not Madden, Sims, Sims, Sims." If AppleTV is at all OS X-like, it shouldn't be long until we're playing Who Wants to be a Millionaire 2 on our BMW of TiVos!!! Will Xbox care?
(This post in part to remind me to post on both PC Gamer's list versus the wacko top 100 list Matt posted earlier as well as to blog my wonderful first impresion of playing Tetris on my cell phone, which reminded me a lot of Amazing X-Ray Glasses from Sprint!.)
'Are you sure you want to sync games? All existing games on the Apple TV XXX will be replaced with games from this iTunes library.' and 'Some of the games in your iTunes library were not copied to the Apple TV XXX because they cannot be played on this Apple TV.' are further confirmation of comments by PopCap VP Greg Canessa indicating that the Apple TV would indeed support games.
In the latest issue of PC Gamer, the top ten games of the year went something like, "WoW, Sims, Sims, something else that's not Madden, Sims, Sims, Sims." If AppleTV is at all OS X-like, it shouldn't be long until we're playing Who Wants to be a Millionaire 2 on our BMW of TiVos!!! Will Xbox care?
(This post in part to remind me to post on both PC Gamer's list versus the wacko top 100 list Matt posted earlier as well as to blog my wonderful first impresion of playing Tetris on my cell phone, which reminded me a lot of Amazing X-Ray Glasses from Sprint!.)
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 23:50
Comment
[ 2 ]
07 December 2006
More Wild Speculation: Apple and Console Gaming
Okay, even macrumors.com isn't putting much weight into this latest rumor about Apple and console gaming, but I found the following paragraph an interesting slant:
According to Smarthouse, Apple has faced initial setbacks with IBM and Sony on getting their hands on the latest game-console CPU technology, which they may want to use in order to allow developers to seamlessly transition their games over to Apple's new platform. Instead of a dedicated gaming console, Apple may instead integrate gaming as an extension of a more general media center.
If true, it means Apple would be going out of its way to ensure porting from consoles to the [Mac Mini/iTv/whatever] is, if not particularly easy, at least receives first-party support. More importantly, it would do a better job explaining the games development related job ads on Apple's site a while back, as they apparently outsourced the majority of the iPod titles.
We can dream, right?
According to Smarthouse, Apple has faced initial setbacks with IBM and Sony on getting their hands on the latest game-console CPU technology, which they may want to use in order to allow developers to seamlessly transition their games over to Apple's new platform. Instead of a dedicated gaming console, Apple may instead integrate gaming as an extension of a more general media center.
If true, it means Apple would be going out of its way to ensure porting from consoles to the [Mac Mini/iTv/whatever] is, if not particularly easy, at least receives first-party support. More importantly, it would do a better job explaining the games development related job ads on Apple's site a while back, as they apparently outsourced the majority of the iPod titles.
We can dream, right?
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 19:14
Comment
[ 2 ]
21 September 2006
Is closed bad? iPod gaming
I'm not real sure how I feel about this quite yet:
Essentially long-time Mac game makers want to know 1.) Why they didn't get to write the first iPod games, since most of the new games were not created by Apple, and 2.) Why there's no SDK for them to start doing so now.
It would seem part of the answer's pretty obvious. Aspyr and friends don't have an uber-name brand to offer, like Pac-Man or Tetris, the latter probably being the game for portable players. I know it sold quite a few original Game Boys to quite a few nonstandard gamers. Many of the other games, short of Texas Hold 'Em, are similar crossover games, and even that appeals to the non-twitch gamer. They're not exactly like Tony Hawk Pro Skater, one that Adams suggested as an iPod possibility to MacWorld.
I wonder if games written to the open source iPod interfaces (here's one) would give them a good proving ground for making great games. Also wonder if these things are being written in assembler, or if there's much in the way of APIs for iPod gaming; the second being required for the SDK these companies want to be worth much.
In any event, this is just another example of the gestalts/synergies/[catchphrase here] of building atop the binary medium. It's now cheaper to provide music with binary data decoded with generic processors than any other setup, and whaddya know, games just happen to be developed in a similar fashion! Voila. Reeses.
- We've got some really great ideas for iPod games if Apple will open up an iPod SDK to developers -- everything from doing handheld specific branded games, like what we've done with Tony Hawk Pro Skater and Call of Duty 2 for PocketPC, to some unique and new gameplay mechanics that integrate with the music already on your iPod" added Aspyr's [Glenda] Adams.
Essentially long-time Mac game makers want to know 1.) Why they didn't get to write the first iPod games, since most of the new games were not created by Apple, and 2.) Why there's no SDK for them to start doing so now.
It would seem part of the answer's pretty obvious. Aspyr and friends don't have an uber-name brand to offer, like Pac-Man or Tetris, the latter probably being the game for portable players. I know it sold quite a few original Game Boys to quite a few nonstandard gamers. Many of the other games, short of Texas Hold 'Em, are similar crossover games, and even that appeals to the non-twitch gamer. They're not exactly like Tony Hawk Pro Skater, one that Adams suggested as an iPod possibility to MacWorld.
I wonder if games written to the open source iPod interfaces (here's one) would give them a good proving ground for making great games. Also wonder if these things are being written in assembler, or if there's much in the way of APIs for iPod gaming; the second being required for the SDK these companies want to be worth much.
In any event, this is just another example of the gestalts/synergies/[catchphrase here] of building atop the binary medium. It's now cheaper to provide music with binary data decoded with generic processors than any other setup, and whaddya know, games just happen to be developed in a similar fashion! Voila. Reeses.
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 16:03
Comment
[ 3 ]
12 September 2006
New portable gaming platform in town
Looks like Apple's made the iPod into a gamer, and this might explain the ad for game developers on their jobs site a ways back. The poster-child game is, not surprisingly, Tetris. Bejeweled, Cubis 2, Mahjong and friends suggest this is an attempt to shoot at the market that plays Yahoo games -- so less male-centric. Still, Texas Hold 'Em (a popular PDA game) and Pac-Man seem to aim at the "old" demographic.
I just had to try Pac-Man, so I bought it. Hard to tell how I'm doing on my iPod Shuffle, though. I think Pac just ate Blinky.
I do wonder, though doubt, if they'll play within iTunes, like TV shows do now, turning your iMac into a iPod Advance Game Player. Could this enable the next Pippin?! Sure hope not.
Hrm. Now that I think about it, I suppose this is exactly what I'd asked for a while back. What happens if you think of and program for the iMac as a platform? Matt's wondered about an iTunes method of delivery, a la Steam, but friendlier. Certainly Macs have the wherewithal to easier compete with Xbox, etc's new classic game downloads style of play.
I just had to try Pac-Man, so I bought it. Hard to tell how I'm doing on my iPod Shuffle, though. I think Pac just ate Blinky.
I do wonder, though doubt, if they'll play within iTunes, like TV shows do now, turning your iMac into a iPod Advance Game Player. Could this enable the next Pippin?! Sure hope not.
Hrm. Now that I think about it, I suppose this is exactly what I'd asked for a while back. What happens if you think of and program for the iMac as a platform? Matt's wondered about an iTunes method of delivery, a la Steam, but friendlier. Certainly Macs have the wherewithal to easier compete with Xbox, etc's new classic game downloads style of play.
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 15:04
Comment
[ 4 ]
28 August 2006
Nothing new to hate, bash old game
As a kid I spent a lot of time in the library run by my mother, and it was there that I spent literally days with the Apple ][+ and Apple //e. Along with Sneakers, I got to play In Search of the Most Amazing Thing. This educational adventure game was one of my earliest disappointing game experiences.
I don't recall the exact details, but you could buy these wild gizmos in the game's store (some described here). It took me ages to save up for some astounding hoozawhatzit, and I still remember the excitement I felt when I finally bought it. I couldn't wait to see what it would look like in all its monochrome green glory.
Except, it didn't do anything. As far as I could tell, it got put on your ship and just sat there. I felt so ripped off, I put the game aside and never touched it again.
Having read the game ending spoiler at Wikipedia, I'm glad I gave up when I did. Boy, what a sucky ending.
I don't recall the exact details, but you could buy these wild gizmos in the game's store (some described here). It took me ages to save up for some astounding hoozawhatzit, and I still remember the excitement I felt when I finally bought it. I couldn't wait to see what it would look like in all its monochrome green glory.
Except, it didn't do anything. As far as I could tell, it got put on your ship and just sat there. I felt so ripped off, I put the game aside and never touched it again.
Having read the game ending spoiler at Wikipedia, I'm glad I gave up when I did. Boy, what a sucky ending.
Labels: apple
--jvm at 20:58
Comment
[ 0 ]
26 July 2006
Madden Football 1988 for Apple //e
For the morbidly curious, here is the title screen for Madden Football 1988 on an Apple //e:
The DOS and Commodore 64 versions in a previous post.
The DOS and Commodore 64 versions in a previous post.Labels: apple
--jvm at 22:51
Comment
[ 1 ]
07 July 2006
Gimme mini-Classic
My iBook's hard drive is small enough that I decided to forego running Classic. I wanted to play Civilization (the original), however, so, yes, I grabbed a Mac emulator for my Mac. Much, much smaller than OS 9.2.2, and runs Civ1 very well.
Well, why stop there? Why can't Apple release a mini-Classic just big enough to let me play games? Oh, I know I'm dreaming, but heck, you can blog about anything, you know? Now if the emus would just catch up enough for me to play Dark Vengence, Madden, and SiN. (Yes, I realize I'd do better to start learning DOSBox. Didn't I just say this was a blog?)
Well, why stop there? Why can't Apple release a mini-Classic just big enough to let me play games? Oh, I know I'm dreaming, but heck, you can blog about anything, you know? Now if the emus would just catch up enough for me to play Dark Vengence, Madden, and SiN. (Yes, I realize I'd do better to start learning DOSBox. Didn't I just say this was a blog?)
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 18:59
Comment
[ 0 ]
12 June 2006
Where does a serious gamer go for top of the line, mobile gaming?
LowEndMac.com's Andrew Fishkin doesn't really want to know if it's better to upgrade an "old" Powerbook or buy a new Macbook, in spite of his stated intentions. Here's his quick summation:
Especially for serious gamers, the older PowerBooks with their graphics processors and dedicated memory run circles around the low-end Intel GMA950 graphics of the MacBook.
This is an strange way to make a decision on how to throw away $1100 or so, but let's play along. For him, the question appears to boil down to getting to play Quake 4, Rome: Total War, and SW:Sith Lords...
That means that the fastest PowerBook ever released (discontinued only a month ago) is the absolute minimum specification to play Quake4.
... on the move...
You see, I play games when I travel. Rather than spend too much money drinking in some rural motel bar, I'd rather fire up a game on my Mac and crush the enemies of Rome, flex my budding Jedi powers, or reduce the chest of some unsuspecting zombie to pulp with a well-placed load of buckshot.
... and on a 12-13" laptop he can take on a plane...
I also like to play games during long flights. Games and movies make the time go by quickly on my twice-yearly trans-Pacific flight.
Now the MacBook Pro is the perfect 15" laptop for me, but the problem is that I don't travel with a 15" laptop.
... and have that laptop run OS X. The MacBook's integrated video is too low end (Wait, what's the name of this site again?) and the the 15" MacBook Pro is too big for the plane. Um, okay, for this horribly specialized need, yes, you're stuck with an underperforming, old, 12" G4 Powerbook. (UPDATE: Now barefeats.com makes it look like the 12" ain't coming close, either. The 15" and 17" Powerbooks are throwing down 10 & 12 fps on Q4 in 1280x800 (the 13" Macbook's native screen res) to the Macbook's 9. Now there's no reason to bother with that 12"er either.)
That's a boring issue. Here's why I find the article interesting. There is a niche, and it's one I found out quickly when reviewing the Virtual Game Station on MacOS years ago at xlr8yourmac.com, for no holds barred mobile gaming consoles. My awkward use of "no holds barred" here is meant to describe something more than a PSP or Game Boy; you'll notice this guy is talking about not only the latest, but also the most hardware intensive games ("... I'm tired of those [one-year] old games," he remarks). People want to game without apology wherever they find it most convenient, especially in planes. These people usually have a good chuck of expendable income as well, I've noticed.
Just where does a serious gamer go for top of the line, compact, mobile gaming? I was surprised to find that Alienware's 12"er has integrated video too!, so the two-laptop, sell-your-soul-to-the-MS-devil approach may still not be the answer. If you keep up with MS's Origami project, you'll have seen another promised solution to the problem in the Origami video showing a fellow using it to play Halo, and he's obviously not at a desk. I'm suspicious such a box will fill Fishkin's needs, however.
In any event, there's a [very small?] market for high-end, ultra-compact gaming laptops, and we're reaching the point where mobile gaming is ready to happen.
Let's face it, anybody whining about not being able to game on a new MacBook is obviously missing something. I mean, heck, grab a copy of Half-Life or Madden for your MacBook, for crying out loud. They're missing something, that is, unless the person doing the whining is one of these folk -- the type that wants to have the image of -- to want to be able to enter the conversation about -- playing the latest, greatest, and most hardware intensive games, and wants to have experienced doing it on the go.
Especially for serious gamers, the older PowerBooks with their graphics processors and dedicated memory run circles around the low-end Intel GMA950 graphics of the MacBook.
This is an strange way to make a decision on how to throw away $1100 or so, but let's play along. For him, the question appears to boil down to getting to play Quake 4, Rome: Total War, and SW:Sith Lords...
That means that the fastest PowerBook ever released (discontinued only a month ago) is the absolute minimum specification to play Quake4.
... on the move...
You see, I play games when I travel. Rather than spend too much money drinking in some rural motel bar, I'd rather fire up a game on my Mac and crush the enemies of Rome, flex my budding Jedi powers, or reduce the chest of some unsuspecting zombie to pulp with a well-placed load of buckshot.
... and on a 12-13" laptop he can take on a plane...
I also like to play games during long flights. Games and movies make the time go by quickly on my twice-yearly trans-Pacific flight.
Now the MacBook Pro is the perfect 15" laptop for me, but the problem is that I don't travel with a 15" laptop.
... and have that laptop run OS X. The MacBook's integrated video is too low end (Wait, what's the name of this site again?) and the the 15" MacBook Pro is too big for the plane. Um, okay, for this horribly specialized need, yes, you're stuck with an underperforming, old, 12" G4 Powerbook. (UPDATE: Now barefeats.com makes it look like the 12" ain't coming close, either. The 15" and 17" Powerbooks are throwing down 10 & 12 fps on Q4 in 1280x800 (the 13" Macbook's native screen res) to the Macbook's 9. Now there's no reason to bother with that 12"er either.)
That's a boring issue. Here's why I find the article interesting. There is a niche, and it's one I found out quickly when reviewing the Virtual Game Station on MacOS years ago at xlr8yourmac.com, for no holds barred mobile gaming consoles. My awkward use of "no holds barred" here is meant to describe something more than a PSP or Game Boy; you'll notice this guy is talking about not only the latest, but also the most hardware intensive games ("... I'm tired of those [one-year] old games," he remarks). People want to game without apology wherever they find it most convenient, especially in planes. These people usually have a good chuck of expendable income as well, I've noticed.
Just where does a serious gamer go for top of the line, compact, mobile gaming? I was surprised to find that Alienware's 12"er has integrated video too!, so the two-laptop, sell-your-soul-to-the-MS-devil approach may still not be the answer. If you keep up with MS's Origami project, you'll have seen another promised solution to the problem in the Origami video showing a fellow using it to play Halo, and he's obviously not at a desk. I'm suspicious such a box will fill Fishkin's needs, however.
In any event, there's a [very small?] market for high-end, ultra-compact gaming laptops, and we're reaching the point where mobile gaming is ready to happen.
Let's face it, anybody whining about not being able to game on a new MacBook is obviously missing something. I mean, heck, grab a copy of Half-Life or Madden for your MacBook, for crying out loud. They're missing something, that is, unless the person doing the whining is one of these folk -- the type that wants to have the image of -- to want to be able to enter the conversation about -- playing the latest, greatest, and most hardware intensive games, and wants to have experienced doing it on the go.
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 18:02
Comment
[ 0 ]
27 May 2006
John Carmack: The SPOnG interview - Interview at SPOnG.com
John Carmack recently had this to say (in a SPOnG.com interview) when asked about consoles measuring up to PC hardware:
But you can get effectively three times the performance if you're targeting a fixed platform than if you're targeting the PC space.
Hrm, so why is it that Aspyr can't carry this over to the Macintosh, a relatively fixed platform? This is why Quake3Test came out Mac-first -- to help id bug test precisely by limiting the platform combinations. Why aren't there iMac-optimized ports, for instance? You can't swap out a video card to save your life. Use this to your advantage, porters! One might say this was done to a limited extent with G4 & G5 processors & Altivec, but why stop at the processor level?
I recently complained to Matt (via email) that we're right back to the Groovy Grover Cleveland $1000 Mac gaming tax I've run into the ground on this site. For $3-400, you can grab a new Win86 PC that runs Civilization 4 or you can grab a video card to slap into year or two old hardware. On the Mac end, anything less than $1300 is a no-go.
Here are the specs:
Good stuff, huh? Strangely, not only does the Mac version require $1000 more hardware, it also requires twice the hard drive space.
Why?
Oh well, at least there's another rumor of Apple hiring game programmers. And as I said to Matt, I can always find some comfort, as I did this morning, that World of Warcraft runs just fine on my old iBook. Now time to buy some [more?] sod.
But you can get effectively three times the performance if you're targeting a fixed platform than if you're targeting the PC space.
Hrm, so why is it that Aspyr can't carry this over to the Macintosh, a relatively fixed platform? This is why Quake3Test came out Mac-first -- to help id bug test precisely by limiting the platform combinations. Why aren't there iMac-optimized ports, for instance? You can't swap out a video card to save your life. Use this to your advantage, porters! One might say this was done to a limited extent with G4 & G5 processors & Altivec, but why stop at the processor level?
I recently complained to Matt (via email) that we're right back to the Groovy Grover Cleveland $1000 Mac gaming tax I've run into the ground on this site. For $3-400, you can grab a new Win86 PC that runs Civilization 4 or you can grab a video card to slap into year or two old hardware. On the Mac end, anything less than $1300 is a no-go.
Here are the specs:
| Mac | Win86 PC |
|---|---|
| CPU Processor: PowerPC G5/Intel chipset CPU Speed: 1.8 GHz or faster Memory: 512 MB or higher Hard Disk Space: 3.5 GB free disk space Video RAM: 64 MB or higher Disc Drive - DVD | Processor: 1.2 GHz Intel Pentium 4 or AMD Athlon processor or equivalent Operating System: 256 MB RAM (Windows 2000) / 512 MB RAM (Windows XP) Hard Drive: 1.7 GB Free CD-ROM: 4X Speed Video Card: DirectX 9.0c-compatible 64 MB video card with Hardware T&L support |
Good stuff, huh? Strangely, not only does the Mac version require $1000 more hardware, it also requires twice the hard drive space.
Why?
Oh well, at least there's another rumor of Apple hiring game programmers. And as I said to Matt, I can always find some comfort, as I did this morning, that World of Warcraft runs just fine on my old iBook. Now time to buy some [more?] sod.
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 08:27
Comment
[ 11 ]
07 April 2006
[Insert Gaming Specific Boot Camp Pun Here]
Recently Tuncer of Inside Mac Games blogged his first impressions of Boot Camp, a product which allows Windows to boot on new Macintosh hardware:
Playing PC games on an Intel Mac is incredibly impressive. I was able to install and play games like Battlefield 2, Half-Life 2, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Frame rates were excellent on all three games, even at higher resolutions with anti-aliasing turned on. Bottom line: wow.
From the various reports I've seen on the Internet, almost everything that people throw at these machines run PC games just fine on Intel Macs.
I won't bother posting actual benchmarks...just know that games run great on these super fast Intel Macs.
I'm left with a few questions, two of which I'll do you the disservice of sharing.
1.) Why no benchmarks? Seems you've only got a few possible answers -- either it was too much of a nuisance to dig up instructions on how to take benchmarks for each game (an answer with which I can sympathize. Not everything takes demo timedemo1 at the console) or the numbers make the ports of the games, even running on G5 towers, look like absolute molasses. IMG's not going to burn Aspyr's raison d'etre. Note that the first is not necessarily exclusive of the existence of the reasons for the second.
2.) Why the heck is Apple allowing people to dual boot anyway? I've covered how bad an idea this is on a crappy blog elsewhere, but games help show more clearly just how bad an idea allowing people to boot XP on Mac hardware is. By letting Windows live alongside OS X and not within it, as Virtual PC or Mac-on-Linux have done, people may become more comfortable with XP than X on their iMacs because they're forced to live in XP to use XP. I understand the point behind Boot Camp's release -- Mac users stick with Apple because of OS X and don't care to shell out for Windows unless it's an absolute need, so no sales are lost. Yet I still think using XP within X would cause heavy Windows users, of which gamers make up one type, to ultimately enjoy using OS X more. If my Windows desktop is stuck in its own window, I bet I'm eventually using Mail.app instead of Outlook, Safari instead of IE, and a port of The Sims instead of the WinPC original much more quickly.
In any event, the market loves Boot Camp. Apple stock is up $10 a share to $71 the last two days. Sell!
PS -- It hits me that this could have one great benefit: The price of Mac specific games should eventually fall. If the difference between Mac versions and WinPC versions purchased in a year or two is greater than $200, well, why not simply shell out for XP? If you factor in people willing to pirate XP, the price different would have to be even closer. Personally I'm guessing PowerPC gamers get milked like crud by porting companies for the next year or two and then they quit porting altogether (so the price drop means it's not worth porting any more), but we'll see.
Playing PC games on an Intel Mac is incredibly impressive. I was able to install and play games like Battlefield 2, Half-Life 2, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Frame rates were excellent on all three games, even at higher resolutions with anti-aliasing turned on. Bottom line: wow.
From the various reports I've seen on the Internet, almost everything that people throw at these machines run PC games just fine on Intel Macs.
I won't bother posting actual benchmarks...just know that games run great on these super fast Intel Macs.
I'm left with a few questions, two of which I'll do you the disservice of sharing.
1.) Why no benchmarks? Seems you've only got a few possible answers -- either it was too much of a nuisance to dig up instructions on how to take benchmarks for each game (an answer with which I can sympathize. Not everything takes demo timedemo1 at the console) or the numbers make the ports of the games, even running on G5 towers, look like absolute molasses. IMG's not going to burn Aspyr's raison d'etre. Note that the first is not necessarily exclusive of the existence of the reasons for the second.
2.) Why the heck is Apple allowing people to dual boot anyway? I've covered how bad an idea this is on a crappy blog elsewhere, but games help show more clearly just how bad an idea allowing people to boot XP on Mac hardware is. By letting Windows live alongside OS X and not within it, as Virtual PC or Mac-on-Linux have done, people may become more comfortable with XP than X on their iMacs because they're forced to live in XP to use XP. I understand the point behind Boot Camp's release -- Mac users stick with Apple because of OS X and don't care to shell out for Windows unless it's an absolute need, so no sales are lost. Yet I still think using XP within X would cause heavy Windows users, of which gamers make up one type, to ultimately enjoy using OS X more. If my Windows desktop is stuck in its own window, I bet I'm eventually using Mail.app instead of Outlook, Safari instead of IE, and a port of The Sims instead of the WinPC original much more quickly.
In any event, the market loves Boot Camp. Apple stock is up $10 a share to $71 the last two days. Sell!
PS -- It hits me that this could have one great benefit: The price of Mac specific games should eventually fall. If the difference between Mac versions and WinPC versions purchased in a year or two is greater than $200, well, why not simply shell out for XP? If you factor in people willing to pirate XP, the price different would have to be even closer. Personally I'm guessing PowerPC gamers get milked like crud by porting companies for the next year or two and then they quit porting altogether (so the price drop means it's not worth porting any more), but we'll see.
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 01:07
Comment
[ 4 ]
14 February 2006
Sony, Microsoft, Apple: Stop worrying and love the hackers
This is just getting silly. Sony's precious PSP can't stop getting its firmware hacked, from version 2.0 up through the latest version 2.6. Microsoft's claims of hackproofness haven't stopped at least two holes, one for memory cards and one for demo discs, in the Xbox 360. And Apple's latest version of OSX86 has reportedly been hacked.
With each hack comes another attempt to patch a hole. Then another hole. And another patch. And so on.
Obviously the companies want to protect their stuff, but it is always a losing battle. Even the DMCA hasn't helped as much as the companies had hoped, although it's certainly established a slippery slope. As my old man says, "prohibition has never worked". My advice is to try going the other way. That is, don't tell people what they can't do, and open doors to what they can.
I don't see why Sony can't allow the PSP to run in some limited mode that allows unsigned code to run from the memory card. How about special 32Mb PSP memory cards, direct from Sony, which can be used specifically for homebrew? When such a card is inserted, the UMD drive gets turned off and you only have access to the memory card. Such a card would give programmers plenty of room to play and but be far too small for pirated UMD images. If you offer an easy, official hacking option for the masses, they will follow. They might even pay extra for it. They won't settle for unstable hacks that require a specially malformed save game when they can get 90% of what they want -- emulation and Tetris clones -- cheaply and safely. They don't want to brick their $250 toy, after all.
Microsoft could offer some reduced form of its Xbox 360 development tools for homebrew authors and a run-from-memory-card option in much the same way. Disable the disc drive while it's running from the memory card, and you've got all you need for most emulation and homebrew fans.
As for Apple, I'm still waiting to see how this x86 OS X gambit pays off. Ruffin seems reservedly positive about it. For my part, I hope we'll eventually see reduced prices for OS X systems as well as a renewed game market. But why not sell people a self-install version of OS X for some low price and wish them luck? After all, this was essentially the state that RedHat Linux was in about 8 years ago. I remember getting Red Hat 5.1 and having it fail to run X Windows because my NVIDIA Viper V330 card wasn't supported. I was happy to have toyed around with it, and eventually bought other versions of RedHat once my hardware was supported.
So, let me say it again: If you offer an easy, official hacking option for the masses, they will follow. They might even pay extra for it.
With each hack comes another attempt to patch a hole. Then another hole. And another patch. And so on.
Obviously the companies want to protect their stuff, but it is always a losing battle. Even the DMCA hasn't helped as much as the companies had hoped, although it's certainly established a slippery slope. As my old man says, "prohibition has never worked". My advice is to try going the other way. That is, don't tell people what they can't do, and open doors to what they can.
I don't see why Sony can't allow the PSP to run in some limited mode that allows unsigned code to run from the memory card. How about special 32Mb PSP memory cards, direct from Sony, which can be used specifically for homebrew? When such a card is inserted, the UMD drive gets turned off and you only have access to the memory card. Such a card would give programmers plenty of room to play and but be far too small for pirated UMD images. If you offer an easy, official hacking option for the masses, they will follow. They might even pay extra for it. They won't settle for unstable hacks that require a specially malformed save game when they can get 90% of what they want -- emulation and Tetris clones -- cheaply and safely. They don't want to brick their $250 toy, after all.
Microsoft could offer some reduced form of its Xbox 360 development tools for homebrew authors and a run-from-memory-card option in much the same way. Disable the disc drive while it's running from the memory card, and you've got all you need for most emulation and homebrew fans.
As for Apple, I'm still waiting to see how this x86 OS X gambit pays off. Ruffin seems reservedly positive about it. For my part, I hope we'll eventually see reduced prices for OS X systems as well as a renewed game market. But why not sell people a self-install version of OS X for some low price and wish them luck? After all, this was essentially the state that RedHat Linux was in about 8 years ago. I remember getting Red Hat 5.1 and having it fail to run X Windows because my NVIDIA Viper V330 card wasn't supported. I was happy to have toyed around with it, and eventually bought other versions of RedHat once my hardware was supported.
So, let me say it again: If you offer an easy, official hacking option for the masses, they will follow. They might even pay extra for it.
--jvm at 14:28
Comment
[ 9 ]
19 November 2005
Slashdot | John Smedley Answers Your Questions
Slashdot recently posted some questions to John Smedley (who answered), apparently of Star Wars Galaxies fame, an MMORPG with, you got it, a Star Wars theme.
Here's the one that interested me:
Unfortunately, no. I absolutely love Macs (I've got 2 at home myself). I wish we could [port to the Mac in light of the move to Intel], but it's enormously cost prohibitive if you didn't start out from the beginning with Mac development in mind.
If you recall the rather long piece we had with Aspyr's Glenda Adams a while back, I wondered what it would take to make creating crossplatform games easier to make than Microsoft-specific ones. Her answer surprised me a bit, as she said that even if it was easier to program an xplat game (though there was some issue with the term 'easier' as well), MS's marketshare meant that developers would still prefer to use MS's techs. So even in a hypothetical world where it was easier to program for Windows and Macs at the same time, her contention was that Microsoft-only PC games would still be most prevalent. Who could change this? She very insightfully answered, "Microsoft, but I don't see why they would want to."
So here we see Apple bowing down to at least half of the evil bi-opoloy (it's not quite an oligarchy, so I'm not sure what the term would be; sorry) with the switch to Intel -- so in one sense, Macs now use a large subset of what were once 'Microsoft' programming techs, particularly when it comes to machine language and byte endian-ness. With Star Wars Galaxies, we've got a large company who says it's still not worth it to start working on a Mac version to grab some extra marketshare. Admittedly, it's not like Apple's retrofitting PPC Macs, and in the same story I was using, above, Adams told us, "Mac users hold onto their hardware longer," but as I've seen a few other places, I think we can safely assume the death of porting issues as in break-the-bank porting issues is still a long ways off. I'll be intrigued to see if the people who felt that Mac ports will die now that, assumedly (and that's a big "assumedly") Macs with Intel innards will be able to boot Windows.
It is encouraging, if I can silver lining anything, that at least Smedley recognizes that targeting the Mac up front is an option and a business model worth mentioning. The person who asked the question being answered went a bit overboard, suggesting World of Warcraft's success is due, in large part, to the xplat-ness of the game, but I think/hope Blizzard and World of Warcraft do have other gaming co's listening and interested.
Here's the one that interested me:
Unfortunately, no. I absolutely love Macs (I've got 2 at home myself). I wish we could [port to the Mac in light of the move to Intel], but it's enormously cost prohibitive if you didn't start out from the beginning with Mac development in mind.
If you recall the rather long piece we had with Aspyr's Glenda Adams a while back, I wondered what it would take to make creating crossplatform games easier to make than Microsoft-specific ones. Her answer surprised me a bit, as she said that even if it was easier to program an xplat game (though there was some issue with the term 'easier' as well), MS's marketshare meant that developers would still prefer to use MS's techs. So even in a hypothetical world where it was easier to program for Windows and Macs at the same time, her contention was that Microsoft-only PC games would still be most prevalent. Who could change this? She very insightfully answered, "Microsoft, but I don't see why they would want to."
So here we see Apple bowing down to at least half of the evil bi-opoloy (it's not quite an oligarchy, so I'm not sure what the term would be; sorry) with the switch to Intel -- so in one sense, Macs now use a large subset of what were once 'Microsoft' programming techs, particularly when it comes to machine language and byte endian-ness. With Star Wars Galaxies, we've got a large company who says it's still not worth it to start working on a Mac version to grab some extra marketshare. Admittedly, it's not like Apple's retrofitting PPC Macs, and in the same story I was using, above, Adams told us, "Mac users hold onto their hardware longer," but as I've seen a few other places, I think we can safely assume the death of porting issues as in break-the-bank porting issues is still a long ways off. I'll be intrigued to see if the people who felt that Mac ports will die now that, assumedly (and that's a big "assumedly") Macs with Intel innards will be able to boot Windows.
It is encouraging, if I can silver lining anything, that at least Smedley recognizes that targeting the Mac up front is an option and a business model worth mentioning. The person who asked the question being answered went a bit overboard, suggesting World of Warcraft's success is due, in large part, to the xplat-ness of the game, but I think/hope Blizzard and World of Warcraft do have other gaming co's listening and interested.
Labels: apple
--ruffin at 15:06
Comment
[ 2 ]
Feedburner
