Apple
Alicendre
My Starcraft box has only an "cd-rom PC/Windows 95" mention on it, so I suppose there are two versions of it.
iridescentfyre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blakecraw
In short, if companies use opengl rather than directx, this is hardly an issue.
|
Josh
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chingsinkly
All Blizzard games now are compatible on macs, if it takes WAY more resources and Blizz is willing to spend them, i can guarantee they aren't losing anything by making their games mac compatible. Basically, Blizzard > Anet and Mac > Pc. You can close the thread now.
|
Damn.
Well, for starters.. World of Shitcraft is made in OpenGL, so barely any resources are spent in making it ported to Mac, as it's already semi-compatible anyway. It's not programmed and developed with DirectX like Guild Wars is. That's why it looks so crap and cartoony (WoW)... DirectX is so much more eye-candy capable, and optimizable compared to OpenGL, way too many features that blow your mind away visually.
Blizzard earn a huge monthly revenue, ArenaNet don't. ANet was made by ex-Blizzard employees, and quite frankly. With minimum advertising, there doing amazingly well - even with no monthly fees.
lordpwn
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Josh
Well, for starters.. World of Shitcraft is made in OpenGL, so barely any resources are spent in making it ported to Mac, as it's already semi-compatible anyway. It's not programmed and developed with DirectX like Guild Wars is. That's why it looks so crap and cartoony (WoW)... DirectX is so much more eye-candy capable, and optimizable compared to OpenGL, way too many features that blow your mind away visually.
|
I've dealt with both, and I can say OpenGL 2.0 (or OpenGL 1.3 with some extensions) is more than capable of producing the kind of graphics you can see in GW at good framerates (given a decent video card), and should be able to do anything that DX10 can once the ARB gets the right extensions done (could take a while, though - they're probably a little busy with the OGL 3.0 spec).
Josh
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lordpwn
Have you ever programmed anything for either Direct3D or OpenGL? Because you sure as hell don't sound like you have.
I've dealt with both, and I can say OpenGL 2.0 (or OpenGL 1.3 with some extensions) is more than capable of producing the kind of graphics you can see in GW at good framerates (given a decent video card), and should be able to do anything that DX10 can once the ARB gets the right extensions done (could take a while, though - they're probably a little busy with the OGL 3.0 spec). |
But tell me this, if it IS so easy to work with and it's just as good as DirectX - Then why isn't anyone programming for it apart from Blizzard, knowing they could get the odd few percentage more of sales from Mac users..?
lordpwn
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Josh
But tell me this, if it IS so easy to work with and it's just as good as DirectX - Then why isn't anyone programming for it apart from Blizzard, knowing they could get the odd few percentage more of sales from Mac users..?
|
Direct3D is slightly easier in some ways: it integrates with other parts of Windows which devs are likely to be familiar with, and has been completely reinvented by Microsoft a few times by now so it's pretty refined at this point. The first few versions of Direct3D were so incredibly bad most devs refused to use them, writing open letters to Microsoft to get them to abandon the project. Obviously they did not - if they had switched to OpenGL they would have killed off one of the things keeping Windows afloat.
Because of DirectX's importance to Microsoft's the company's very keen to work with the hardware makers and game devs to make sure Direct3D supports all the latest features, too. I'd say it's that and the overwhelming popularity of Windows that keeps programmers using Direct3D, even if the concept of a high-level graphics API tied to a single platform sounds like an oxymoron to most programmers.
zamial
Macs are the left handed, retarded cousin of the computer world. The only reason to buy 1 is that your school said too and you believed them.Or your guidance counselor talked you into graphic design.
The reason that macs don't get viruses as often as pc is that the creators of viruses want to target as many computers as possible, seems like the same logic as a game manufacturer.
Wouldn't a better question be:
If guidance counselors knew anything about carrier moves, why did they end up as guidance counselors?
The reason that macs don't get viruses as often as pc is that the creators of viruses want to target as many computers as possible, seems like the same logic as a game manufacturer.
Wouldn't a better question be:
If guidance counselors knew anything about carrier moves, why did they end up as guidance counselors?
Dean Harper
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zamial
Macs are the left handed, retarded cousin of the computer world. The only reason to buy 1 is that your school said too and you believed them.Or your guidance counselor talked you into graphic design.
The reason that macs don't get viruses as often as pc is that the creators of viruses want to target as many computers as possible, seems like the same logic as a game manufacturer. Wouldn't a better question be: If guidance counselors knew anything about carrier moves, why did they end up as guidance counselors? |
isamu kurosawa
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zamial
Macs are the left handed, retarded cousin of the computer world. The only reason to buy 1 is that your school said too and you believed them.Or your guidance counselor talked you into graphic design.
|
Woop Shotty
So am I. Left handed, designer, works with Mac. Guess you don't think much of me then.. I must be as retarded as they get..
Cataclysm
In before RED ENGINE GOstorm...
Oh, wait...
Oh, wait...
wetsparks
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alicendre
Fixed.
Blizzard is one of the richest game companies, Anet is not, thus making this processus alot easier for the first one. Furthermore, I believe Anet has something more important than remaking their first game when its sequel is in development. |
roflcopter2445
I've seen something about emulating XP on a Mac before, can't remember what it was called. If I find it again, I'll post it here.
Dean Harper
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roflcopter2445
I've seen something about emulating XP on a Mac before, can't remember what it was called. If I find it again, I'll post it here.
|
moriz
the potential profits gained by allowing macs to play GW is lower than the money needed to code GW using openGL than direct3D. that's basically it. not to mention, direct3D is easier to run on lower end machines than openGL, which allows more low end windows machines to play it. add it up and you'll know why GW was programmed in direct3D instead of openGL.
Dean Harper
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
the potential profits gained by allowing macs to play GW is lower than the money needed to code GW using openGL than direct3D. that's basically it. not to mention, direct3D is easier to run on lower end machines than openGL, which allows more low end windows machines to play it. add it up and you'll know why GW was programmed in direct3D instead of openGL.
|
k, if the mods could close this thread, id be really happy, thanks!
Btw, thnks for the straightforward answer moriz
Haskell
This thread has one of the highest density of idiocy I have ever seen.
moriz
it has doubled after you posted.
roflcopter2445
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dean Harper
if you mean by emulating, that it can run windows, its called Bootcamp.
|
Haskell
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
not to mention, direct3D is easier to run on lower end machines than openGL, which allows more low end windows machines to play it. add it up and you'll know why GW was programmed in direct3D instead of openGL.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
it has doubled after you posted.
|
Btw, any proof that D3D is "easier to run" than OpenGL? What does it even mean? Also, Direct3D is not a programming language...
moriz
my old desktop can handle direct3D better than openGL. since it's specs are on par with most lowend desktops, i'd say it's a fair assumption that most lowend systems will have better results running direct3D than openGL.
i know direct3D is not a programming language. however, games are programmed to use it. it's also easier to use than openGL from what i've heard.
in case you haven't noticed, this is a public forum. make an insult, and be prepared to get one in return.
i know direct3D is not a programming language. however, games are programmed to use it. it's also easier to use than openGL from what i've heard.
in case you haven't noticed, this is a public forum. make an insult, and be prepared to get one in return.
Yanman.be
We are slipping away from the real question...
Do we WANT Apple fanboys playing our game?
I certainly not.
Do we WANT Apple fanboys playing our game?
I certainly not.
Haskell
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
... a fair assumption ...
... from what i've heard ... |
OpenGL was never "less performant" or "harder to use". The opposite is true. However, it's a known fact that MS artificially slows down OpenGL (for example - Vista doesn't support OpenGL if you use 'Aero' ...).
UT2k4 under Windows is 30% slower than under Linux - both use OpenGL.
What MS does seems logic - they want to protect their position on the market - but it's also very risky. If a gamedeveloper has to consider to support DirectX9 for WinXP-costumers and DirectX10 for Vista - why not use OpenGL3 and easily support all plattforms, Windows, Linux, *BSD, MacOSX, PS3, XBox etc. Like UT3 or Q5 will do.
It even looks better: http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/inde...howtopic=13647
And that's just GL2.1
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yanman.be
Do we WANT Apple fanboys playing our game?
|
Lay
Yay, always nice seeing people talking about stuff they have no clue about.
It's quite hard for a game that uses Direct-X to convert to mac, so appearently the costs wouldn't justify the financial benefits.
You can run it though with Crossover, it works but not that great - has some graphical glitches. You'll have to dual boot and run Bootcamp to fully enjoy it, if you have an Intel Mac.
It's quite hard for a game that uses Direct-X to convert to mac, so appearently the costs wouldn't justify the financial benefits.
You can run it though with Crossover, it works but not that great - has some graphical glitches. You'll have to dual boot and run Bootcamp to fully enjoy it, if you have an Intel Mac.
moriz
i think we've already established why it's not worth the effort and money to gain that tiny bit of additional revenue.
especially considering how little money mac users have, after they've been gouged $2k+ for a system that's worth maybe $1k
especially considering how little money mac users have, after they've been gouged $2k+ for a system that's worth maybe $1k
Haskell
If you think the nearly whole Console-, Mac- and Linuxmarket is not worth the "tiny bit of additional revenue", well okaaaaaay.
The development of a game that uses OpenGL is as expensive as to use D3D, so you don't pay more and can reach more potential costumers.
Then again - good point, Macusers have a higher income and will buy a PS3 anyways to play games. Or buy a license of Win and run GW in Bootcamp, or install Linux (on a Mac) and let GW run under Wine.
Apple has no real interests to establish MacOSX as a gaming plattform, because you know, Windows is for gamekiddies and people who waste time with anti-virus-software, OSX is for producers of creative content who need a perfect workflow and Linux is just for nerds. They are not interessted to weaken those prejudices. Hehe.
The development of a game that uses OpenGL is as expensive as to use D3D, so you don't pay more and can reach more potential costumers.
Then again - good point, Macusers have a higher income and will buy a PS3 anyways to play games. Or buy a license of Win and run GW in Bootcamp, or install Linux (on a Mac) and let GW run under Wine.
Apple has no real interests to establish MacOSX as a gaming plattform, because you know, Windows is for gamekiddies and people who waste time with anti-virus-software, OSX is for producers of creative content who need a perfect workflow and Linux is just for nerds. They are not interessted to weaken those prejudices. Hehe.
moriz
you are retarded if you actually believe all that.
Skuld
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lay
Yay, always nice seeing people talking about stuff they have no clue about.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
you are retarded if you actually believe all that.
|
12345678
Woop Shotty
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yanman.be
Do we WANT Apple fanboys playing our game?
|
jhu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Haskell
The development of a game that uses OpenGL is as expensive as to use D3D, so you don't pay more and can reach more potential costumers. |
Quaker
The important point is that, whether or not ANet coulda/shoulda/woulda used OpenGL - they didn't. GW uses DirectX. That, plus the fact they are concentrating on doing GW2, makes it very unlikely they would port it to Apple.
Those people who want to play GW on a Mac will just have to use Bootcamp or some such.
Enough with the OpenGL fanboy (and anti-Apple) BS already!
Those people who want to play GW on a Mac will just have to use Bootcamp or some such.
Enough with the OpenGL fanboy (and anti-Apple) BS already!
FlameoutAlchemist
-OP has asked for thread close, and this is slowly turning into a PC/Apple catfight
-closed
-closed