[Cipher13]

WTF is the deal with all these Mac games that only support Mac-Mac network play? Raven Shield, Generals, and so forth?

It's pathetic. I would never even consider buying these games, for that simple reason.

There's no technological nor programming barrier here - so what's the explanation?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
WTF is the deal with all these Mac games that only support Mac-Mac network play? Raven Shield, Generals, and so forth?

It's pathetic. I would never even consider buying these games, for that simple reason.

There's no technological nor programming barrier here - so what's the explanation?

The programming barrier is probably because the damn game developers (that obviously don't care about portability and possibly extending their market) use Microsoft's DirectPlay.

With a good plan, a portable game can be easily and simultaneously developed on Mac, PC and Linux and the cost saving on putting all three in the same box on the same CD is much greater than porting it several months later and resurrecting a marketing campaign and changing the market target to "Mac users".

[Horsepoo!!!]

Homeworld 2 announced by Aspyr...but, yup, you guessed it:

Mac-to-Mac only.

But Sierra has been known to use MS tools for everything. DirectX, DirectPlay for everything.

a2daj says DirectX and DirectPlay weren't the real reason for Half Life's cancelation and that Half Life was close to 99% complete but it's really hard to believe DirectPlay wasn't involved in the cancelation...Mac-to-Mac only netplay was something Mac users didn't want to swallow (even though it might have been a good thing for that game...less hacks and cheats.)

[Turias]

Some companies have also said there is an issue with patches. They don't want to have to patch all systems simultaneously, breaking cross-system play, anyway.

Still, it's pathetic.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Homeworld 2 announced by Aspyr...but, yup, you guessed it:

Mac-to-Mac only.

But Sierra has been known to use MS tools for everything. DirectX, DirectPlay for everything.

a2daj says DirectX and DirectPlay weren't the real reason for Half Life's cancelation and that Half Life was close to 99% complete but it's really hard to believe DirectPlay wasn't involved in the cancelation...Mac-to-Mac only netplay was something Mac users didn't want to swallow (even though it might have been a good thing for that game...less hacks and cheats.)

Just like C&C:G (fundamental floating point differences between x86 and PPC chips) and Rainbow Six Raven Shield (licensing issues along with technical issues), Half-Life's networking issues had nothing to do with DirectPlay. They had PC<->Mac networking. The developer was joining PC servers. They axed PC<->Mac networking to cut down on future support costs. Half Life is based on the Quake engine (albeit very heavily modified, most of it rewritten). QuakeWorld had pretty darn good netcode so it would have been a good basis to start from, so why switch to DirectPlay?

It sucks, but it's something we have to deal with. But you don't see cross console networking going on between the major consoles. The closest you'll get is Final Fantasy XI for the PC and PS2, but the PC and PS2 are not directly competing against each other. I think it's cool that we even get Mac<->PC networking to begin with.

[Cipher13]

For all the above reasons and more, it's a damn shame... I know several game developers and representatives check this forum out, and I hope they know how many sales they're losing over this.

Never will I buy a game that supports only Mac-Mac networking.

[Holigen]

Hey, thats cool if you think that, but its your loss. I just got Generals and its an awesome LAN game with my buds (oddly, most of them have Macs).

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by Holigen:
Hey, thats cool if you think that, but its your loss. I just got Generals and its an awesome LAN game with my buds (oddly, most of them have Macs).

You're lucky...I personally know exactly 0 people that have Macs.

[GlendaA]

Interestingly, contrary to all the gloom and doom in here, C&C Generals is selling very well for us. It is without a doubt a hit, and we're very happy with how it's doing on the Mac so far.

So could the huge backlash against Mac to Mac play maybe be a little exaggerated? PC to Mac play is still one our top goals on every game it can be possibly done with, but so far in the case of C&C Generals it hasn't appeared to hurt sales or reviews (98% on MacGamer, 9/10 on IMG).

Glenda
Aspyr Media

[a2daj]

Remember, the vocal minority tends to be the loudest.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by GlendaA:
Interestingly, contrary to all the gloom and doom in here, C&C Generals is selling very well for us. It is without a doubt a hit, and we're very happy with how it's doing on the Mac so far.

So could the huge backlash against Mac to Mac play maybe be a little exaggerated? PC to Mac play is still one our top goals on every game it can be possibly done with, but so far in the case of C&C Generals it hasn't appeared to hurt sales or reviews (98% on MacGamer, 9/10 on IMG).

Glenda
Aspyr Media

Well, mine is one sale you lost (re. Generals).

You also did Raven Shield, right? Another sale lost.

And don't tell me I'm the only one, because I'm certainly not.

You can't say it hasn't hurt your sales, because you don't know that. It's ignorant. You have nothing to compare with. You can't compare it with your other games that DO offer Mac-PC play, because they're not the same kind of game, nor do they appeal to the same audience necessarily.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I know several game developers and representatives check this forum out, and I hope they know how many sales they're losing over this.

How many? Would you have rather the port be killed instead of shipping with Mac-Mac play? That was the only reasonable alternative.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
How many? Would you have rather the port be killed instead of shipping with Mac-Mac play? That was the only reasonable alternative.

May as well... I mean, screw paying $90 (AUD) or whatever for a game I can't even play over a network. Therefore, the port is useless (to me), and everybody has wasted their time and energy. So, in my eyes, it may as well have been killed.

Sure, some people will appreciate it... great. For very little extra effort, a LOT more people would enjoy it.

[mac freak]

I say Blizzard opens a Mac porting house

[a2daj]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
May as well... I mean, screw paying $90 (AUD) or whatever for a game I can't even play over a network. Therefore, the port is useless (to me), and everybody has wasted their time and energy. So, in my eyes, it may as well have been killed.

Sure, some people will appreciate it... great. For very little extra effort, a LOT more people would enjoy it.

All of a sudden you're a pro at the porting business? Well, damn, submit your resume to Aspyr since you know the porting business soooo much more than them. You're such a programming expert you can solve all of their crossplatform networking problems.

Boo hoo for you. Nobody wasted any time or energy because there are a large number of people who are enjoying the game. It's selling big time. Thankfully, you're just a loud mouth minority. Since you don't buy games that are Mac to Mac only you're not their intended target.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by a2daj:
All of a sudden you're a pro at the porting business? Well, damn, submit your resume to Aspyr since you know the porting business soooo much more than them. You're such a programming expert you can solve all of their crossplatform networking problems.

Aww, resorting to attacking me, how cute. Not to mention mature. Just means you have nothing of value to say, right? Thought so.

Originally posted by a2daj:
Boo hoo for you. Nobody wasted any time or energy because there are a large number of people who are enjoying the game. It's selling big time. Thankfully, you're just a loud mouth minority. Since you don't buy games that are Mac to Mac only you're not their intended target.

Great, it's selling big-time. Congratulations. You'll never know how much better it would sell otherwise - which was my entire point of my other post (to Glenda).

"F" for comprehension, buddy.

[amonitzer]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
How many? Would you have rather the port be killed instead of shipping with Mac-Mac play? That was the only reasonable alternative.

Not shipping at all would definitely hurt sales even more, wouldn't it? It's not like they're a charity.

I wonder why nobody has ported DirectPlay to Mac OS X yet? Direct X already got ported (as a layer to OpenGL), it can't be that difficult, and it'd definitely be a big plus for the porting house.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Aww, resorting to attacking me, how cute. Not to mention mature. Just means you have nothing of value to say, right? Thought so.

More value to say than you ever have had. You claim all the porting issues are so easy to solve, well go solve them then. Tell them how it's done.

Originally posted by Cipher13:

Great, it's selling big-time. Congratulations. You'll never know how much better it would sell otherwise - which was my entire point of my other post (to Glenda).

"F" for comprehension, buddy.

Grading yourself again, are you? Have fun with that.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by amonitzer:
Not shipping at all would definitely hurt sales even more, wouldn't it? It's not like they're a charity.

I wonder why nobody has ported DirectPlay to Mac OS X yet? Direct X already got ported (as a layer to OpenGL), it can't be that difficult, and it'd definitely be a big plus for the porting house.

If it were so simple, the porting houses would have done it. It's not easy and the reasons why have been discussed several times before.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by amonitzer:
Not shipping at all would definitely hurt sales even more, wouldn't it? It's not like they're a charity.

Yes, that would make sense. (I should mention that I work for Aspyr.)

I wonder why nobody has ported DirectPlay to Mac OS X yet? Direct X already got ported (as a layer to OpenGL), it can't be that difficult, and it'd definitely be a big plus for the porting house.

It's pretty difficult, and in the case of Generals, not a factor anyway.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
May as well... I mean, screw paying $90 (AUD) or whatever for a game I can't even play over a network. Therefore, the port is useless (to me), and everybody has wasted their time and energy.

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to claim that everyone has wasted their time and energy because it's useless to you. Are you a solipsist?

For very little extra effort, a LOT more people would enjoy it.

I can appreciate your frustration over the lack of cross-platform play - we all feel it. Having said that, the effort required to fix the problem is both major and expensive, both in terms of cost and in terms of game performance.

[mac freak]

Cipher has... a bit of an ego...

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by a2daj:
More value to say than you ever have had. You claim all the porting issues are so easy to solve, well go solve them then. Tell them how it's done.

Grading yourself again, are you? Have fun with that.

If it's at all possible to port an entire game, like Generals, to another platform - logically, the networking issue should be a relatively minor factor, no? In comparison, I mean - the problem being, it probably wasn't given enough attention. Somebody, somewhere, just thought "Forget about it".

Such a weak argument - "go do it yourself". Sigh.

Oh well. It's not my loss, in the end... only Aspyr's, or whoever. All I've gotta do is buy the PC version instead (which is also cheaper). I'd much rather buy a piece of Mac software (to support Mac developers and porting houses, and so I can just put it on the laptop), but I won't settle for second-rate games.

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to claim that everyone has wasted their time and energy because it's useless to you. Are you a solipsist?

My point is that it's useless to a very large number of people. I don't think anybody realises how many people have discounted purchasing Generals, et al, for these reasons. I personally know several people - and I only know a few Mac users.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
If it's at all possible to port an entire game, like Generals, to another platform - logically, the networking issue should be a relatively minor factor, no?

In this case, it was a major and expensive issue to solve, both in cost and in impact on game performance.

My point is that it's useless to a very large number of people. ... I personally know several people - and I only know a few Mac users.

A "very large number", "several" or a "few" - how many are we talking about? If you only know a few Mac users, it's not a statistically large enough sample space from which to project.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
If it's at all possible to port an entire game, like Generals, to another platform - logically, the networking issue should be a relatively minor factor, no? In comparison, I mean - the problem being, it probably wasn't given enough attention. Somebody, somewhere, just thought "Forget about it".

Such a weak argument - "go do it yourself". Sigh.

This clearly shows you know nothing about porting games. You assume it's so easy to do this stuff. So if it is so easy then, logically, wouldn't they have done it? If you know better, tell them how to do it. Show them the way. You think you know these things but everytime you post you show how ignorant you are. And "go do it yourself" is not an argument. It's an explicit dig at your ignorance of the whole situation. If you can't comprehend that...

[flamingmoe]

Originally posted by a2daj:
This clearly shows you know nothing about porting games. You assume it's so easy to do this stuff. So if it is so easy then, logically, wouldn't they have done it? If you know better, tell them how to do it. Show them the way. You think you know these things but everytime you post you show how ignorant you are. And "go do it yourself" is not an argument. It's an explicit dig at your ignorance of the whole situation. If you can't comprehend that...

look at his sig

"...and your intelligence gives you nothing to mask your ignorance." - Goldfinger

how ironic!!!

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by a2daj:
This clearly shows you know nothing about porting games. You assume it's so easy to do this stuff. So if it is so easy then, logically, wouldn't they have done it? If you know better, tell them how to do it. Show them the way. You think you know these things but everytime you post you show how ignorant you are. And "go do it yourself" is not an argument. It's an explicit dig at your ignorance of the whole situation. If you can't comprehend that...

Tell me who you talked to at Microsoft about porting the DirectPlay code and I'll tell you if you're making an effort. In case you can't figure it out I have many contacts there so I can confirm the veracity of your statement.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Tell me who you talked to at Microsoft about porting the DirectPlay code and I'll tell you if you're making an effort. In case you can't figure it out I have many contacts there so I can confirm the veracity of your statement.

DirectPlay has nothing to do with Generals. However, I'd love to know (for future reference) who we *should* talk to at Microsoft about Mac DirectPlay.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
DirectPlay has nothing to do with Generals. However, I'd love to know (for future reference) who we *should* talk to at Microsoft about Mac DirectPlay.

It has everything to do with Nascar 2003, which I finally picked up for the PC for $6.98 at Target. It makes the $19.99 I wasted on my Mac version more palatable now.

All this talk of how hard it is to port it over to the Mac side with the networking code is making me wonder why you don't look at the work of a bunch of Open Source developers (*cough*WINE*cough*) and just emulate the x86 environment. You personally have already admitted you just use wrappers anyway. Just emulate the whole f'ing environment and be done with it...

[a2daj]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
It has everything to do with Nascar 2003, which I finally picked up for the PC for $6.98 at Target. It makes the $19.99 I wasted on my Mac version more palatable now.

All this talk of how hard it is to port it over to the Mac side with the networking code is making me wonder why you don't look at the work of a bunch of Open Source developers (*cough*WINE*cough*) and just emulate the x86 environment. You personally have already admitted you just use wrappers anyway. Just emulate the whole f'ing environment and be done with it...

Uh, hello. Performance hit? Emulating is expensive. Do you seriously think that we should suffer a huge performance hit by throwing in x86 emulation into games just for networking? That's ridiculous. People complain enough about performance differences between PC and Mac games. Emulating the whole environment is not a good option at all. And the wrappers that they speak of is not about emulating x86 hardware. It's all about emulating the APIs which is completely different.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
It has everything to do with Nascar 2003, which I finally picked up for the PC for $6.98 at Target.

No, it doesn't - Nascar 2003 doesn't use DirectPlay either. Who should we be talking to at Microsoft?

[itai195]

Originally posted by a2daj:
Just like C&C:G (fundamental floating point differences between x86 and PPC chips)

I'm not sure I 100% buy the floating point argument... Don't both platforms adhere to the IEEE standards for floats? I may have missed it, is there thorough explanation of the reason for C&C's lack of interoperability available on the web someplace?

That said, Cipher's bile would more appropriately be directed toward game developers who cut corners and inadequately design the network components of their games. There's no inherent reason why any game should not interoperate between Macs and PCs other that incompetence on the part of the developers. The porting houses do not deserve your blame -- I think they probably put in their best effort, but there's only so much that can be done by the time they get their hands on a game.

And Microsoft, but I can't really blame them. Maybe Apple should be more proactive in the first place. In the end this is a market that Microsoft values and Apple does not, end of story.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'm not sure I 100% buy the floating point argument... Don't both platforms adhere to the IEEE standards for floats?

There were a few reasons why C&C had interoperability issues, but yes, floating-point accuracy was the main one. The IEEE spec is cross-platform, but is not exact. A quick googling reveals some articles about this:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...udy.ifremer.fr>

and

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...s.aoc.nrao.edu>

There is a thread about it here, complete with sample code illustrating the problem:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...thdecision.com>

[i5works]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'm not sure I 100% buy the floating point argument... Don't both platforms adhere to the IEEE standards for floats?

Yes, but there can be subtle differences, as Brad and others have pointed out, especially once the compiler's optimizer gets involved. It may slightly alter the results of mathematical operations, sacrificing precision for speed.

If it's any consolation, if you search some of the PC forums, you'll see that some PC players can't play against each other for this very same reason. Because there are subtle differences in the results of math operations between different x86 processors.

[thePurpleGiant]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Well, mine is one sale you lost (re. Generals).

You also did Raven Shield, right? Another sale lost.

And don't tell me I'm the only one, because I'm certainly not.

Strangely enough, me too, those exact games. I'm not a big gamer, and the last game I got was Unreal Tournament! But even so, I was about ready to jump back into it, when I noticed the whole Mac-Mac thing. None of my friends use Macs. The only reason I would want the games is to play against them, which I could no do. So no sale for me

[itai195]

Originally posted by i5works:
If it's any consolation, if you search some of the PC forums, you'll see that some PC players can't play against each other for this very same reason. Because there are subtle differences in the results of math operations between different x86 processors.

This being the case, why did the developers depend on the accuracy of floating point calculations? Why should that even affect networking code...?

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by itai195:
This being the case, why did the developers depend on the accuracy of floating point calculations? Why should that even affect networking code...?

All RTS games work by counting on one major thing : given the same set of inputs, the game will run identically on all clients. They send a minimum of data across the wire, e.g. each command being executed by a player, and then they rely on the game engine to take those commands and run the simulation in the exact manner for everyone connected to the game.

Anyway, to verify this assumption, they also send across checksums of game data structures to make sure everyone has the same state after all these commands are executed. As it happens in C&C:G, some of those game data structures contain floating point numbers, so if one bit is off, the game is marked as "out of sync" and then you're hosed.

[Angus_D]

Originally posted by mac freak:
I say Blizzard opens a Mac porting house

Aaand that would help things how, exactly?

[Angus_D]

Isn't it great how all the random people who obviously have no clue when it comes to developing anything (let alone games) seem to "know better" than the people who devote their lives to porting? (Westlake, Aspyr, etc).

Yes, we all agree that the current state of play sucks.

I don't think anyone's responded to the "surely porting DirectPlay would be easy" argument. Sure, you can port the DirectPlay API and lay it over your own codebase to get network capability. However, you can't ensure that your codebase works exactly the same as the MS one does, i.e. that it generates the same packets to send out over the network given the same inputs, without reverse engineering the MS code. That would be illegal.

[Caesar2099]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Isn't it great how all the random people who obviously have no clue when it comes to developing anything (let alone games) seem to "know better" than the people who devote their lives to porting? (Westlake, Aspyr, etc).

Preach it!

Couldn't have said it better myself (i was just gonna call Cipher13 a c**k suckin douche bag)

[Link]

You know they probably did it to keep down on the mac vs pc wars

[itai195]

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Isn't it great how all the random people who obviously have no clue when it comes to developing anything (let alone games) seem to "know better" than the people who devote their lives to porting? (Westlake, Aspyr, etc).

That's exactly right. I don't blame the porting houses -- they're doing the best they can with what they have to work with.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

Never will I buy a game that supports only Mac-Mac networking.

I won't either, not again. In fact, I don't plan to do ANY gaming on the Mac, from now on. I spent about $200 last year on games that SAID they were cross-platform and then turned out to not be. Never again -- gaming is done in Windoze.

[finboy]

Originally posted by a2daj:
All of a sudden you're a pro at the porting business? Well, damn, submit your resume to Aspyr since you know the porting business soooo much more than them. You're such a programming expert you can solve all of their crossplatform networking problems.

Boo hoo for you. Nobody wasted any time or energy because there are a large number of people who are enjoying the game. It's selling big time. Thankfully, you're just a loud mouth minority. Since you don't buy games that are Mac to Mac only you're not their intended target.

That's pure class. Grow up.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by finboy:
I spent about $200 last year on games that SAID they were cross-platform and then turned out to not be.

My math shows that this works out to roughly 4 games. Which were these?

[a2daj]

Originally posted by finboy:
That's pure class. Grow up.

It's obvious that my more level headed approach to explaining some of the more common problems that occur in porting games falls upon deaf ears in the MacNN forums so I've had to stoop to the lower levels to get my point across to folks who insist on spreading ignorance and FUD among the Mac gaming populace, especially when their points are based on pure BS. In some cases that's the only way they'll listen.

If one is going to post an opinion, at the very least form it based on fact, and not speculation. If you're not sure, ask someone who would know. We often have the actual developers posting in these forums and often times go out of their way to help or explain why things work or don't work but some insist on belittling them and their attempts to help them out. We have so many armchair programmers claiming how easy it is to port games why aren't they out there doing the grunt work? If they know better than the people doing the work then they should put up or shutup.

If someone is going to post outrageous claims with no way to back them up, I'll correct them. If you read through this entire thread you'll see that I'm not the one that needs to grow up. I know what I'm talking about. There are better ways to complain than the methods used in this thread.

[Caesar2099]

Originally posted by finboy:
I won't either, not again. In fact, I don't plan to do ANY gaming on the Mac, from now on. I spent about $200 last year on games that SAID they were cross-platform and then turned out to not be. Never again -- gaming is done in Windoze.

And I thought Cipher13 was a c**k suckin douche bag.

[goMac]

I don't see why everyone is being so hard on Aspyr. If anything, they're doing great things to try to bring Mac gaming on par. They are acting as a publisher for both Mac and PC versions in some cases, which I think heightens the chances of cross platform multiplayer, and simultaneous Mac and PC releases. Jees... people expect instant change. Face it, the Mac is not going to turn into an equal player in the gaming community overnight. Companies like Aspyr are working to change that however. So pitch in and support their work. The more you support them, the more money they have to throw at future titles, and the more respect they get from PC game developers. Boycotting games because they don't support PC multiplayer doesn't solve the problem.

[stevep63]

Please ignore the idiot(s) in this thread complaining about how you're 'loosing sales' because of not having Mac to PC play. Sure, we all would like to have cross-platform play, just as you would like to have that as well, but if it comes between no cross platform play verses no Mac port AT ALL, then I say bring on the Mac-to-Mac only play baby!

Chances are the jacka**es complaining about this steal their games anyway!

I can't believe all the high quality games coming out from Aspyr this year alone. This year is legendary for Mac gaming thanks to you guys. I already own Command and Conqer: Generals and plan to buy Call of Duty, Breakthrough, and of course, the biggest of the biggies, Battlefield 1942.

(Pause here for a moment of reverence in honor of BF 1942 for the Mac)

I even hope to be getting Return of the King for a Christmas present later this year. Heck, why don't we make this easy and I'll just sign my paychecks over to you guys!

;^)

Take care and keep up the GREAT work!

-SJ

[jamesa]

let me start about by saying I don't blame the porters. appreciate them being in the threat, too

however, if presented with the choice, I'd rather you go down the HL route - can the whole thing. Two reasons:
1. redeploy resources to ports that can work with the other 99% of PC games out there (probably more)
2. it kills Apple users more to say they have the port but it won't work with the PC version, than to bluntly say they don't have the port at all. Maybe it's just me being principled, but I think it's better to take nothing than something half broken.

Again, not the porters faults.

-- james