Apple Needs To Get Its Game On 332
BusinessWeek is running a piece exploring why Apple needs to get back into gaming. From the article: "Maybe Apple's user base just isn't fully aware of great games that are now available for the Mac? Sure, there are games to be found at the Apple store, prominently displayed in the software section. But does Apple market the Mac as a gaming machine? Adams says it should. 'The biggest thing that Apple could do is educate its users,' she says. 'Apple's message is so closely tied to iTunes and iLife and the iPod and these are all great selling points. We have a great relationship with Apple and they help us get the games ready. But we really need the users to meet us halfway, and only Apple can make that happen.'"
Educating users ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Educate them how ? Like Bob or Clippy ? Like Vista (à la "You need more privileges to move that file") ? No, thanks !
First Thing (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course that would never happed because it would undercut all of their high-margin botique formfactors, damage the brand, etc etc etc. Style Nerds have more money than gamers.
I hope so (Score:2, Insightful)
making games profitable to port (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple should buy Nintendo (Score:5, Insightful)
An Apple/Nintendo merger makes quite a bit of sense from a corporate culture perspective as well - Nintendo, like Apple, is the smaller, more personal of the gaming companies, focused on user experience more than sheer graphic/processing power. From a philosophical standpoint, their directions align nicely.
Additionally, Nintendo could help Apple expand into the Japanese / Asian market with other consumer electronics, given Nintendo's HQ and savvy with that marketplace.
It's the games stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Blame sw dev stupidity, not Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
Macs are 100% capable of running all the latest games, and doing it well. Hell, these days they are basically a typical x86 machine with a totally ideal OS. You can get the most recent powerful video cards no problem, so it's not like performance is an issue, especially considering that every new Mac has a cutting edge Intel CPU in it (other than the G5s).
It would be nice if, for example, developers would use OpenGL more often considering it's actually the only reasonably cross-platform 3d API that has fairly widespread acceptance. I can't understand why companies willfully lock themselves into a Fisher-Price platform just because all the kiddies use it. It's frustrating as hell to me that game development companies are so shallow that literally all they care about is what will make them money.
I guess I'm just too idealistic in imagining a world where software is written with adherence to cross-platform standards, where people can run the same pieces of software regardless of what platform they prefer.
I shouldn't have to be locked out of huge portions of the software industry because I purchase the computers that work best for me. Unfortunately, it seems that "those who make the decisions" don't agree with that sentiment at all.
Re:Apple should buy Nintendo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple used to have the premier gaming computer. (Score:3, Insightful)
Excuse me? All I can remember of the early-80s gaming scene is that whenever a game came out for both Apple II's and C-64s, the graphics and sound on the C-64 version would blow away the Apple version.
Not convinced? Summer Games from Epyx. I rest my case.
Ulp. I can't believe that I'm suggesting this (Score:5, Insightful)
First though, Apple needs to sit down with ATi, Intel, and likely soon nVidia and get their drivers in better working order. they have the push to be able to do this so there should be no reason not to. Currently, the Intel Macs perform significantly worse under World of Warcraaft under OSX than booting into XP. Yes, this is just one app but it is a driver issue. This needs to change immediately.
Apple also needs to woo the developers (developers! developers!) to OSX. It's not going to happen immediately but if they can prove that there is both a market and a valid gaming system (get rid of crappy GMA-950, fix drivers) then they might have a chance. Developers are already going to have to switch to Vista's new way of doing things, they could also switch to OSX.
So, first step: get the back catalog. Next step: get the developers. Apple has a serious chance here. They better not screw it up.
Re:First Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You would think (Score:2, Insightful)
PCs for the longest time (and even currently to a lesser extent) had better video cards available. Macs were still preferred for graphics work, because most REAL graphics work doesn't involve a video card except to view the finished product. In other words, you've got to build the camera before you get excited about the buying the best printing equipment to show off your work.
Re:You would think (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, Macs have been touted as better for graphics, that's not really true, but the difference is in the work flow, and the community.
3D development is just as powerful on a Mac as on a PC no difference there.
Game development is a whole other ball game, all the while Macs were running on PPC, it has made it very difficult for game companies to port their systems from x86 to PPC, not to mention that also the OS structure is different than Windows. Even though now Macs run on Intel, developers have to use tools for the Mac like Xcode, to take their Windows code, and change all that code to be compatible with OS X.
Additionaly things like MS' DirectX are not available for Mac, so they have to make sure their engine will run under OpenGL using OS X's window displays.
Games won't be "better" on Macs because it doesn't work that way, you're not designing something, you're playing with something that was already created. Something that was created for a larger market.
While game development software does exsist where you can develop on Mac and port out to Windows (ie OTEE.dk Unity), the market share is very small.
Re:Apple should buy Nintendo (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot of parallels that you can draw between Apple and Nintendo, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense for them to merge. Why is it bad that Nintendo is an independent company? Why would Apple want to outlay a huge pile of money to buy them? How many years would it take for that purchase to pay itself off? Would it even work? Even if there was no interruption to either business, and they both continued to turn a profit, the purchase price would be very large, and it'd take many years for the profit to cover those initial costs. Apple is doing pretty well financially, but I still don't think they can afford to buy their way into a huge market like MS is doing.
Apple is already well respected in Japan. They don't need Nintendo's help. Nintendo doesn't need their help. I really don't see the logic in it at all. Sorry
Re:making games profitable to port (Score:3, Insightful)
Now with even John Carmack singing the praises of MS's "XNA" XBox360 stuff, OpenGL seems headed back to the workstation market.
Re:Blame sw dev stupidity, not Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
One day while working at Looking Glass Studios some years back, I was called to an all-hands company meeting. It turned out the meeting was the announcement that it was to be the last day of the company's existence. Why were we closing down? Money. We had none, and we owed lots. Everyone at the meeting was sad, from playtesters to the president. Why sad? Because we had a great team that had made some great games, and we were in the process of making even better ones. Not because we were money-grubbing pigs.
The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games.
To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc. But compiled code does not a shipping product make. Optimizations, installers, QA, packaging, distribution channels, you name it. It all costs money, and if the result isn't a net gain, it means the company can't afford it. Do you buy things you can't afford?
Re:First Thing (Score:1, Insightful)
Which explains why just about every Mac user I know pirates Office rather than pay $300 or whatever it is at the moment.
Re:making games profitable to port (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmmm I believe UT2003/4 and Doom 3 (Quake 4? have not tried that) use SDL for Mac & Linux Clients.
I think they are "industrial strength" bah.
Re:Blame sw dev stupidity, not Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But for that you need to improve them (Score:3, Insightful)
As a general observation, to me this screams "My friend is not a very good programmer" quite loudly. If you disagree, ask your friend to show you, say, the DirectX code needed to render a single triangle, and then the same code for OpenGL. (Note: I'm not a DirectX or OpenGL 'fan', I just recognise that neither are perfect.)
Maybe if your 'other platforms' are Mac OS X and Linux. If your other platforms are Xbox/Xbox 360 or PS2/PS3, then, I'm afraid, no. It's actually quite hard to get publishers to go for a PC (Windows) game because the returns are so much smaller than for console games.
For example, the new Mario Bros game for the DS sold 900,000 units in Japan in the last week. If a Windows game sells that many in total, it's a fantastic result. And that's a handheld console game we're talking about.
If you get lucky and happen to write The Sims or WoW, then yes, you will exceed those sales figures. But those games are anomalies, not the norm.
Re:Blame sw dev stupidity, not Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blame sw dev stupidity, not Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
You: The reason game companies care about making money is so that they can stay solvent and make more games.
Spot the difference.
No one is saying game companies shouldn't worry about making money, but that they should, first and foremost, care about making great games. Money just happens to be the second-most critical requirement for making great games (the first is talent).
Think about it personally. Do you only care about making money? No. Do you care about making money? Yes. Big difference.
To your other point, every game company I know of uses some sort of platform-agnostic libraries/framework/etc.
Except for those that go with DirectX, which do, sadly, exist.
Do you buy things you can't afford?
C'mon, this is America. Of *course* we do. But no one is asking came companies to buy (develop) a game they can't afford. Instead, we just want them to make the best games that they can afford, and not simply make the games that will make them the most money regardless of quality.
Of course, you might ask, "why should a company not seek the most money possible?" That's a shallow question (not aimed at you, unless it's a question you'd ask). Companies are made of people, and people will often prefer to be involved with a quality project. Companies exist solely to serve people, and people desire quality products. It's really up to the people in the corporation to choose the balance between quality and profit, although it's my opinion that profit is chosen in a proportion greater than the people involved would prefer, which brings us full circle to the OP's lament.