[a2daj]

Originally posted by 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

Killing the port is stupid. Then we could miss out on a good game regardless of PC compatibility. It kills Mac gaming to not get good games.

[superTOR]

If you look at this from an economical perspective you may get a clearer image. No company is in the gaming business for charity, right? Any company will cynically do a cost-benefit analysis when introducing, or even porting a game as they are in it for the profit. If the costs of incorporating a feature into a game (ie. boundary-less network play) is less that the poteniale more-sale the incorporation would cause, then they do it. Translated into this case, it is clear that the developers do not think it is worth the effort, as the loss of sales is not big enough. I have been discouraged from buying several games ported to mac myself, but it seems not enough people have reacted in a similar way.

Even if I have little more insight into the porting industry than what is shown above, I feel the need to put one main argument presented by "a2daj" into perspective. Although he wouldn't agree with this, he basically claims that nobody should point of what they consider to be faults in a product, unless they are prepared to fix it themselves. That entire way of thinking is just at best illogical to me. One shouldn't just assume that the professionals know what they are doing without questioning. Future products will more likely be faulty and inferior due to it, because they get away with the products weaknesses without penalty.

Again, a2daj, I see from your previous posts that you have insight into this situation, and some of you arguments are valid. However, trying to silence people by pointing the abovementioned out is just wrong. If your roof was falling down on you in your sleep, wouldn't you complain to the carpenter even if you aren't one yourself?

In conclusion, I would love to see compatible network code, but as long as we buy the products nonetheless, we won't see more efforts put into it. I would assume that leaving this feature out of future game won't prove to be cost efficient, as the prices of broadband decline and the online gamers grow in numbers

[a2daj]

superTOR, you're taking my argument out of context. We have a number of armchair game porters here who think porting games is rather straightforward and that getting PC<->Mac networking is trivial. I'm not telling them to go out and do it. I'm point out how absurd their claims are. It's called sarcasm.

I'll point out flaws in games to developers when I see them. I ask questions. I even provide some suggestions. What I don't do is going around assuming the game developers don't know what they're doing and then proceed to make idiodic posts claiming I know more than them. I know enough of them to know that they're smart people and if DirectPlay isn't involved will try everything possible to get PC<->Mac networking functional.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by superTOR:
In conclusion, I would love to see compatible network code, but as long as we buy the products nonetheless, we won't see more efforts put into it.

If not enough Mac gamers bought the games because of Mac-only net play, then this would effectively kill those projects early on in development rather than force an increase of development resources well past the make-or-break point. The effort required to fix these issues is major, and there are plenty of games to be brought to the Mac that would not have this problem and would suddenly become more likely candidates than a more popular game with this limitation.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
If not enough Mac gamers bought the games because of Mac-only net play, then this would effectively kill those projects early on in development rather than force an increase of development resources well past the make-or-break point. The effort required to fix these issues is major, and there are plenty of games to be brought to the Mac that would not have this problem and would suddenly become more likely candidates than a more popular game with this limitation.

Hey again Brad,

I don't know if you have any sway with the developers, but if you had any I know that I'd prefer that you guys take a punt on which games are going to be good in the future (for eg, the C&C series is a pretty good bet) and see if you can't get these issues ironed out at the source.

Again, it assumes you can contact the developers, which I don't know if you can. Just my 2�

-- james

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by jamesa:
I don't know if you have any sway with the developers, but if you had any I know that I'd prefer that you guys take a punt on which games are going to be good in the future (for eg, the C&C series is a pretty good bet) and see if you can't get these issues ironed out at the source.

Typically it's rare for us to have any influence with the original developers. They generally want to be left alone when it comes to the Mac port. We've even had a few contracts where one of the conditions of signing was that we wouldn't contact the PC developer.

[Spliff]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
Typically it's rare for us to have any influence with the original developers. They generally want to be left alone when it comes to the Mac port. We've even had a few contracts where one of the conditions of signing was that we wouldn't contact the PC developer.

Why is that? Are they just a cranky bunch of *ssholes or are they just too busy and don't want to be bothered? Or is it their contempt for the Mac platform so great that they can barely stomach the thought that they're allowing their games to be ported, and then, only for the money?



Seriously though, I know for a fact that the head of EA Canada loathes Macs and is trying to get those EA employees that use Macs to switch to PCs.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by Spliff:
Seriously though, I know for a fact that the head of EA Canada loathes Macs and is trying to get those EA employees that use Macs to switch to PCs.

Well, that explains a bunch. I was always a little curious why no EA Canada games were ported. I think EA Canada had code that was needed in the NFSU port but wouldn't give it up. NBA Live and FIFA are both EA Canada games. I wouldn't expect to see ports of those anytime soon, as in ever.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by a2daj:
NBA Live and FIFA are both EA Canada games.

Most of EA's sports titles use the EA Canada libraries, for what it's worth. I believe they refer to it as the "REAL" library.

[a2daj]

In case someone brings it up, Tiger Woods was done by a completely separate studio, right? The guys that use to do Sierra's golf games.. Headgate I think. So it probably didn't rely on thoses libs too heavily if at all, thus the port was possible.

[olePigeon]

Hey, check this out. I emailed the guys who make MacDX (it's DirectX for Mac OS. You can port a game in as little as 2 weeks.) I asked them about DirectPlay games and lack of network compatability in the most recent titles, they responded with this:

We do presently have our own DirectPlay support which has been working in
the Paradox Series of titles which have been ported, although we presently
suffer the same problem as most other solutions. We have been investigating
some paths to resolve this and we are hopeful we'll have a solution soon.

So the future looks bright. Hopefully these guys can do the same with DirecPlay as they've done with DirectX. These guys are pretty damn cool in my book.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Hey, check this out. I emailed the guys who make MacDX (it's DirectX for Mac OS. You can port a game in as little as 2 weeks.)

See, here's the thing - everyone has their own DirectX library for the Mac. Aspyr does, Westlake, Blizzard, Contraband, the list goes on. In fact, our DirectPlay layer maps onto OpenPlay. This is essentially the same limitation that Coderus has with their MacDX implementation.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
See, here's the thing - everyone has their own DirectX library for the Mac. Aspyr does, Westlake, Blizzard, Contraband, the list goes on. In fact, our DirectPlay layer maps onto OpenPlay. This is essentially the same limitation that Coderus has with their MacDX implementation.

Microsoft goes out of their way to make it difficult to write applications crossplatform, no wonder it's more expensive to develope for the Macintosh.

[thePurpleGiant]

Originally posted by goMac:
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.

But the problem is, I'm not boycotting buying them to prove a point, I am boycotting them because they represent no value to me if I can't play vs Windows. Therefore I am given no option to chip money in, unless I go and buy games that I won't even play. I don't have that kinda money to just go 'supporting' companies, without receiving a game that I will play heaps in return. Come out with a few killer Mac vs PC network games, and I will support them.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by thePurpleGiant:
But the problem is, I'm not boycotting buying them to prove a point, I am boycotting them because they represent no value to me if I can't play vs Windows. Therefore I am given no option to chip money in, unless I go and buy games that I won't even play. I don't have that kinda money to just go 'supporting' companies, without receiving a game that I will play heaps in return. Come out with a few killer Mac vs PC network games, and I will support them.

Bingo. Then again, I have a PC just to play games. I work on my Mac and play on my PC. The fact that the Mac can play is a side benefit but if the games are going to support only Mac to Mac play I'd rather support the creative talents that made the PC game.

With all due respect to the Mac porter developers that frequent these forums you are just copying someone elses work. The developers that made the original games had the creative talent and the programming smarts to make a game that sold so well it makes the Mac crowd jealous. If you're not going to bother making a complete port of the game then do us a favor and design and develop a game that the PC crowd wants. Turn the tables, so to speak. Are you up to the challenge?

Edit: Removed a redundant only.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Bingo. Then again, I have a PC just to play games. I work on my Mac and play on my PC. The fact that the Mac can play is a side benefit but if the games are going to support only Mac to Mac play I'd rather support the creative talents that made the PC game.

With all due respect to the Mac porter developers that frequent these forums you are just copying someone elses work. The developers that made the original games had the creative talent and the programming smarts to make a game that sold so well it makes the Mac crowd jealous. If you're not going to bother making a complete port of the game then do us a favor and design and develop a game that the PC crowd wants. Turn the tables, so to speak. Are you up to the challenge?

Edit: Removed a redundant only.

Where's the favor? Not doing a port means missing out on that game. For being a developer you sure like to trivialize what these folks have to do to get a game ported. Sure, they don't have to worry about the various assets, designing the AI code, or worry about the storyline, but there's still a lot of work that goes into the ports. Some game engines have to be completely rewritten.

One of the advantages of working on ports is that you're not stuck on the same game for 1-5 years. You can work on 1-5 games in any given year. Some people prefer that.

Not having Mac<->PC networking in a game hardly calls for a port to not be done. That's just plain silly. It's hardly doing anyone but a very small vocal minority any favors. If anything, the Mac community would be losing out on a great game. Age of Mythology/Empires, Dungeon Siege, C&C:G, and NASCAR are great games even without cross platform networking. But if lack of it is your determining factor of purchasing a game, so be it, but I don't believe that's case for most Mac gamers.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by a2daj:
Where's the favor? Not doing a port means missing out on that game. For being a developer you sure like to trivialize what these folks have to do to get a game ported. Sure, they don't have to worry about the various assets, designing the AI code, or worry about the storyline, but there's still a lot of work that goes into the ports. Some game engines have to be completely rewritten.

If one of the main components of the game is the network play, then one of the priorities of the game port should be compatibility with the majority of the people who bought the game. If the porter of the game determines that this is not a priority, is it any surprise that there will be some people who do not like that concentration, or lack thereof, of effort? Brad keeps chiming in how the numbers don't support the theory that games don't sell due to the lack of network play. Is it any wonder that people may choose not to say such things on this forum when people like you come in and say "Build it yourself" to such reports?

Originally posted by a2daj:

One of the advantages of working on ports is that you're not stuck on the same game for 1-5 years. You can work on 1-5 games in any given year. Some people prefer that.

Yet with one to five games being released and sold at any given time you are losing out on making a killing on that one game that took you three to five years to build and all the inherent first sales and co-marketing opportunities (what games do Aspyr and Macsoft bundle with the Mac version of the Radeon and the GeForce?) and the licensing fees, etc. The gain to any Mac house that chooses to go down this path could be very rewarding. If you (at Disney) and Brad (at Aspyr) choose to ignore the revenue stream inherent in being the creator, developer, and publisher of your own destiny in the Mac market, please forgive me for not crying on your behalf.

Originally posted by a2daj:

Not having Mac<->PC networking in a game hardly calls for a port to not be done. That's just plain silly. It's hardly doing anyone but a very small vocal minority any favors. If anything, the Mac community would be losing out on a great game. Age of Mythology/Empires, Dungeon Siege, C&C:G, and NASCAR are great games even without cross platform networking. But if lack of it is your determining factor of purchasing a game, so be it, but I don't believe that's case for most Mac gamers.

Why do you insist on saying that we, the Mac community, are missing out on these great games? They're routinely a year late. Any PC built three years ago can play almost all of last year's games. You could buy a $200 Linux machine from Walmart, slap a Windows install on it and play the games a year later by buying them out of the bargain bin (remember, you're already selling them a year late at full or higher price).

Mac sales represent no more than 4% of PC sales in any given year. The lack of ability to play against the PC user means that the typical Mac buyer of a ported PC multiplayer game is missing out on playing against approximately 92% of the people who bought the game. Inability to play against over 90% of the people who bought the game is pathetic. I may be one of the "vocal minorities" but you forget that all majorities start as a minority.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
With all due respect to the Mac porter developers that frequent these forums you are just copying someone elses work.

Well, yeah - that *is* what porting means, after all.

The developers that made the original games had the creative talent and the programming smarts to make a game that sold so well it makes the Mac crowd jealous.

You're leaving out the most important factor - money. Give us a comparable budget, and I'm sure there won't be any problem turning something out. Recouping the investment on just the Mac market, well that's a different story.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
Well, yeah - that *is* what porting means, after all.

You're leaving out the most important factor - money. Give us a comparable budget, and I'm sure there won't be any problem turning something out. Recouping the investment on just the Mac market, well that's a different story.

You think all PC game companies were big overnight? What huge budgets did they have when they were starting out?

You obviously missed the thrust of my point which is: Build the game so that it can be cross-platform. Then you can sell to both markets.

The PC game maker is getting paid by you for the Mac market. Make the game good enough that they will come to you to license the game. Or be the ultimate sellout *cough*Bungie*cough*. Either way, you get the cash you only seem interested in...

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
If one of the main components of the game is the network play, then one of the priorities of the game port should be compatibility with the majority of the people who bought the game. If the porter of the game determines that this is not a priority, is it any surprise that there will be some people who do not like that concentration, or lack thereof, of effort?

Network compatibility is always a priority. Of course, it being a priority and it being remotely possible are ideas sometimes at odds with each other. There comes a time when you have to be pragmatic about a situation and hope for the best. Sometimes that means making a tough decision that will be unpopular.

Yet with one to five games being released and sold at any given time you are losing out on making a killing on that one game that took you three to five years to build and all the inherent first sales and co-marketing opportunities (what games do Aspyr and Macsoft bundle with the Mac version of the Radeon and the GeForce?) and the licensing fees, etc.

I'm not sure how we'd bundle games with the GeForce, given that it's only sold as an OEM card for the Mac. However, we do bundle games directly with some Mac models (iMacs in particular, I believe). I don't work with licensing/bundling, so I can't tell you with certainty what gets bundled with what but this certainly isn't being ignored. As far as Mac-only games being bundled, Brian Greenstone has done this with his Pangea titles. He can tell you a lot about the economics involved for the Mac market.

They're routinely a year late.

Many are not. Off the top of my head, Civ 3, Jedi Academy, Halo, Alice and most of the Sims stuff followed anywhere from 2 to 6 months. I'd say on average, the release time works out to be 6 months, as we usually get the code once the game goes GM (it's rare to get it any sooner).

[rantweasel]

Originally posted by goMac:
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.

If Aspyr can't provide me with the game that I want (eg, Raven Sheild with PC<->Mac netplay), why should I buy a game I don't want (Raven Sheild as Aspyr sells it)? I appreciate that people put a lot of effort into porting it, but it's a port that is useless to me. I'm not going to blow $50 bucks on a netplay oriented game if I can't play against 98% of the other people playing it. Porting games that can't include fairly essential features doesn't solve the problem either. And if they're going to port games with limited playability, there should be big print warnings about the missing netplay.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
Network compatibility is always a priority. Of course, it being a priority and it being remotely possible are ideas sometimes at odds with each other. There comes a time when you have to be pragmatic about a situation and hope for the best. Sometimes that means making a tough decision that will be unpopular.

Are you going to continually dismiss the (growing) "vocal minority" in regard to PC<->Mac connectivity? You obviously can't change the past and make decisions on games already licensed and ported. You can certainly make a decision to make this a priority during negotiations with the PC maker during the next round. The question is, will you?

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:

Many are not. Off the top of my head, Civ 3, Jedi Academy, Halo, Alice and most of the Sims stuff followed anywhere from 2 to 6 months. I'd say on average, the release time works out to be 6 months, as we usually get the code once the game goes GM (it's rare to get it any sooner).

Your recollection seems to be wrong:

Inside Mac Games (February 15, 2001)

As reported yesterday by Inside Mac Games, American McGee's Alice is being ported to the MacOS; today MacGamer.com reported an update regarding Alice. Aspyr has just released information that Alice may be heading to the Mac as early as May. Development on Alice for the Mac didn't begin until last week, but developers say it should be an easy port. Expect an early June or late May release.

Brad Oliver of Westlake Interactive (and MacMAME fame) is in charge of the Mac port of this game, and had the following to say:

"FWIW, development on the Mac version didn't start until just last week...It's scheduled to wrap up around the middle of May. It looks to be a pretty easy port..."

Actual release date for the Mac October 11, 2001. Original release date for the PC December 5, 2000.

While you are correct that the port took approximately six months, the actual release was almost one year. This is almost double what you recall.

[Leonard]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Are you going to continually dismiss the (growing) "vocal minority" in regard to PC<->Mac connectivity?

Why should they do a ton of hard work for such a minority? It sounds like it's not worth the work, when all I hear is a couple of people complaining. I certainly plan to buy C&C Generals as soon as I get a new G5 (my dual 800 G4 is getting a little old). From what I hear the game is selling well and it looks great.

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
You obviously missed the thrust of my point which is: Build the game so that it can be cross-platform. Then you can sell to both markets.

You're talking to a Mac porting company. Let's face it, most games nowadays are made for consoles or the PCs and ported to the Mac. PC or console companies could care less if these games are easily portable to the Mac. Some PC game companies might actually give it a thought like Epic, id, and Blizzard, but most won't. And the Mac porting company has little say in how the developer develops the game.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
You obviously missed the thrust of my point which is: Build the game so that it can be cross-platform. Then you can sell to both markets.

Aspyr does this already for some titles. Of course, it's easy to kick back on the MacNN forums and spit out common-sense statements like that. "Sell more games and you'll make more money!"

Either way, you get the cash you only seem interested in...

Are you saying we're only interested in cash because there's no cross-platform play in Generals? I think it's you who is missing the point now - there are some things money can't buy.

BTW, who should we talk to at Microsoft about DirectPlay again? Weren't you the one with contacts there? Help a brotha out.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Are you going to continually dismiss the (growing) "vocal minority" in regard to PC<->Mac connectivity?

We never have.

You obviously can't change the past and make decisions on games already licensed and ported. You can certainly make a decision to make this a priority during negotiations with the PC maker during the next round. The question is, will you?

It's always a priority. As I said earlier, that doesn't mean it can be made to happen.

Actual release date for the Mac October 11, 2001. Original release date for the PC December 5, 2000.

I'm not sure where you got that info, but it went GM at the end of June and shipped in mid-July, 2001:

http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/s...ArticleID=3262

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:

I'm not sure where you got that info, but it went GM at the end of June and shipped in mid-July, 2001:

http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/s...ArticleID=3262

It was the most widely reported release date from a variety of URLs that are scattered around the Internet that both allowed you to buy and/or rate the game. Aspyr's site doesn't display this information so I had to guess.

I know that Microsoft's GM to shelf date is on the order of two months. It's a lot shorter at our company. It looks like Aspyr is in the one month range, based on that article.

Even so, the release date (according to the link you posted) is July 16th, which means it was eight months after the release of the PC version.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
It was the most widely reported release date from a variety of URLs that are scattered around the Internet that both allowed you to buy and/or rate the game. Aspyr's site doesn't display this information so I had to guess.

Yeah, I can see where guessing would be easier than searching news articles on a Mac game site.

It's a lot shorter at our company.

What company is that?

Even so, the release date (according to the link you posted) is July 16th, which means it was eight months after the release of the PC version.

Alrighty, then remove Alice from my list and replace it with Elite Force 2 or Clone Campaigns.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Leonard:
Why should they do a ton of hard work for such a minority? It sounds like it's not worth the work, when all I hear is a couple of people complaining. I certainly plan to buy C&C Generals as soon as I get a new G5 (my dual 800 G4 is getting a little old). From what I hear the game is selling well and it looks great.

Ah, but I got C&C: Generals and Zero Hour for less than the ported C&C: Generals is going for. For that matter, Generals was out almost a year ago (could have been longer). Once I found out that there was no network compatibility, I decided to buy the PC version. Guess what? It looks better on my PC than it does on my Mac, and I built my PC about three years ago (admittedly, I bought the graphics card a year ago).

Originally posted by Leonard:

You're talking to a Mac porting company. Let's face it, most games nowadays are made for consoles or the PCs and ported to the Mac. PC or console companies could care less if these games are easily portable to the Mac. Some PC game companies might actually give it a thought like Epic, id, and Blizzard, but most won't. And the Mac porting company has little say in how the developer develops the game.

I am well aware that they are a Mac porting company. That's kinda the point. Why are there no real Mac to PC porting companies? Because there aren't that many Mac game development companies.

With the Xbox 2 being based on the G5 I see a real possibility of the game market opening up to Mac developers. As a matter of fact, I am counting on this. The original Xbox has too many ties to the x86 chipset (after all, it's running on it) and is too tightly coupled with Windows (stripped down Windows 2000 kernel with DirectX bolted on it) to make it very easy for Mac porters. [speculation]With the Xbox 2 being based on a .NET framework with Managed DirectX I can hope that the Mono Project allows for easier ports to the Mac platform.[/speculation] I am trying to confirm that speculation with Microsoft.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
Yeah, I can see where guessing would be easier than searching news articles on a Mac game site.

Then it's truely amazing that my guess was as close as yours was and you were the person responsible for the port.

And, for the record, an article written before the release date of the game is no proof that it actually was delivered on the release date. The senior producer at Atari was anouncing that the release of MoO ]I[ was imminent almost three months before the game shipped.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
If one of the main components of the game is the network play, then one of the priorities of the game port should be compatibility with the majority of the people who bought the game. If the porter of the game determines that this is not a priority, is it any surprise that there will be some people who do not like that concentration, or lack thereof, of effort? Brad keeps chiming in how the numbers don't support the theory that games don't sell due to the lack of network play. Is it any wonder that people may choose not to say such things on this forum when people like you come in and say "Build it yourself" to such reports?

You've obviously missed my point with the "build it yourself" statements. The people I was responding to were claiming networking is easy to do and the porters should just do it. Well, it's pretty damn obvious that it isn't always easy and at times impossible to get crossplatform networking. It's not always a matter of priority, but possibility. DirectPlay games do not get crossplatform networking. There's not much the porters can do about that. Yet people insist on telling the porting houses that they don't care that it's impossible and they should just make it work automatically because they claim it's so easy. So, I tell them that if it's so easy, then they should do it. Put up, or shut up. If they have anymore insight into the situation than the guys doing they code then they should help out if they want crossplatform networking so bad. But they have no technical proof that getting crossplatform networking for a game like C&C:G is easy yet they go on and on about how there's no reason it shouldn't be working, even after they've been told why.

[a2daj]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Then it's truely amazing that my guess was as close as yours was and you were the person responsible for the port.

And, for the record, an article written before the release date of the game is no proof that it actually was delivered on the release date. The senior producer at Atari was anouncing that the release of MoO ]I[ was imminent almost three months before the game shipped.

Your guess was October. How is that "close" to Brad's?

[goMac]

I've thought about the XBox 2 thing before.

I think someone might build an XBox 2 emulator of sorts on top of WINE. WINE as it presently is for Mac (PPC Windows programs only) would be a great start.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Then it's truely amazing that my guess was as close as yours was and you were the person responsible for the port.

There was a delta of 4 months between our guesses, so no, it's not really that amazing unless you measure closeness in the same way that the earth is close to the sun.

And, for the record, an article written before the release date of the game is no proof that it actually was delivered on the release date.

The article stated that it was being sold at MWNY 2001 on July 16, and that is, in fact, what happened. If you have trouble finding dates, they are also listed on the Aspyr web site here:

<http://www.aspyr.com/main.php?p_uri=....php%2Fevents&>

It says Alice started shipping a few days before MWNY 2001.

Anyway, to make up for this mistake, let me mention four more games that shipped in under 6 months of the PC release - Madden 2000, Spider-Man, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Now, who should we talk about at Microsoft about DirectPlay again?

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by a2daj:
Your guess was October. How is that "close" to Brad's?

December to May = 6 Months
May to mid-July = 2.5 Months
mid-July to October = 2.5 Months

Hmmm. Looks pretty close to me!

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
There was a delta of 4 months between our guesses, so no, it's not really that amazing unless you measure closeness in the same way that the earth is close to the sun.

As I pointed out to your Disney collegue, we were both off approximately 2.5 months. Considering that I don't work for Aspyr, let alone the person in charge of the project, I think I was pretty close.

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:

The article stated that it was being sold at MWNY 2001 on July 16, and that is, in fact, what happened. If you have trouble finding dates, they are also listed on the Aspyr web site here:

<http://www.aspyr.com/main.php?p_uri=....php%2Fevents&>

It says Alice started shipping a few days before MWNY 2001.

Since I didn't see that on your site until now, I will concede that point.

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:

Anyway, to make up for this mistake, let me mention four more games that shipped in under 6 months of the PC release - Madden 2000, Spider-Man, Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

So, out of 20 to 30 games, you point to four games and extrapolate from those four that most of your games are available within six months from the PC release? Would that be correct?

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by goMac:
I've thought about the XBox 2 thing before.

I think someone might build an XBox 2 emulator of sorts on top of WINE. WINE as it presently is for Mac (PPC Windows programs only) would be a great start.

What you'd really want is BOCHS. WINE emulates the Windows API (though WINE stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator") on x86.

The Mono Project stands a better chance, IMO, because Microsoft really wants to push developers to use the managed framework that .NET provides. Since Mono is the best shot (so far) to get .NET running on OS X, I feel that this has the best shot of getting the resources. FYI, the official Xbox 2 developer's kit is a G5.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
So, out of 20 to 30 games, you point to four games and extrapolate from those four that most of your games are available within six months from the PC release? Would that be correct?

No, in fact I relied on you having read my other posts wherein I mentioned several other titles. I was also speaking generally for the Mac, not just for Aspyr, as evidenced by my inclusion of Civ3 and Halo. I'll mention 5 more now - Unreal, UT, UT2k4, Escape from Monkey Island, RtCW.

I'd also like to point out that I did not say "most" were within six months, I said they averaged around 6 months. It may be more accurate to say that the median is 6 months, because some titles like BF1942 would blow the average, and simultaneous/near simultaneous releases like Quake3, Tony Hawk 4, Spy Hunter, Kelly Slater Pro Surfer, Wakeboarding Unleashed, the Blizzard games and others can't skew the average enough in the other direction. Even if we say for arguments sake that 6 months is too optimistic, a year delay is the exception rather than the rule.

Moving on, remember earlier in this thread when you mentioned you had contact at Microsoft regarding DirectPlay...?

[a2daj]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
December to May = 6 Months
May to mid-July = 2.5 Months
mid-July to October = 2.5 Months

Hmmm. Looks pretty close to me!

You might want to redo your math. Early June/Late May is closer to mid July than Oct 11th.

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
Moving on, remember earlier in this thread when you mentioned you had contact at Microsoft regarding DirectPlay...?

Having missed a fair bit of this thread, it's been kind of funny coming back and reading it.

You keep asking this, and he keeps ignoring it... hehe

-- james

[goMac]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
What you'd really want is BOCHS. WINE emulates the Windows API (though WINE stands for "WINE Is Not an Emulator") on x86.

No, you would NOT want Bochs. Bochs emulates an x86. The XBox 2 is a PowerPC.

WINE for Mac can already run Windows binaries compiled for PowerPC. I have it installed and have successfully run Win32 PowerPC binaries. Of course, Microsoft has that new gaming framework, but hopefully it could be reverse engineered in some project.

The WINE for Darwin team is working on adding a small scale emulator also that allows Win32 x86 programs to be run on OS X without Windows also. This should be decently fast, much faster than VirtualPC, maybe even with graphics card support, and fully integrated into Aqua (right now it runs in X11).

Screenshot: http://homepage.mac.com/gomac/WINEShot.jpg

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by jamesa:
Having missed a fair bit of this thread, it's been kind of funny coming back and reading it.

You keep asking this, and he keeps ignoring it... hehe

-- james

As if I am going to ignore my NDA.

I never said that I would tell him who to contact. I stated that I would know if they were making an effort if they mentioned who they spoke with. I know that's a subtle distinction. Apparently, too subtle.

Originally posted by goMac:
No, you would NOT want Bochs. Bochs emulates an x86. The XBox 2 is a PowerPC.

WINE for Mac can already run Windows binaries compiled for PowerPC. I have it installed and have successfully run Win32 PowerPC binaries. Of course, Microsoft has that new gaming framework, but hopefully it could be reverse engineered in some project.

The WINE for Darwin team is working on adding a small scale emulator also that allows Win32 x86 programs to be run on OS X without Windows also. This should be decently fast, much faster than VirtualPC, maybe even with graphics card support, and fully integrated into Aqua (right now it runs in X11).

Screenshot: http://homepage.mac.com/gomac/WINEShot.jpg

Okay, my bad. I was under the impression that WINE was an x86 only thing.

[Brad Oliver]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
As if I am going to ignore my NDA.

I never said that I would tell him who to contact. I stated that I would know if they were making an effort if they mentioned who they spoke with. I know that's a subtle distinction. Apparently, too subtle.

Why would a contact's name be under an NDA? And why would it be a non-NDA event for me to mention a contact and not you? Employee names, particularly in a department that has regular contact with the public like licensing, are not under NDAs. It sounds ridiculous to me.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Brad Oliver:
Why would a contact's name be under an NDA? And why would it be a non-NDA event for me to mention a contact and not you? Employee names, particularly in a department that has regular contact with the public like licensing, are not under NDAs. It sounds ridiculous to me.

Licensing in this instance is by business manager and not a licensing contact. My NDA with Microsoft (and for Adobe and Macromedia, for that matter) prohibits me from discussing all sorts of details with other people. I signed the NDA and it's my obligation under law not to divulge this information. If you have an NDA, great! Then you can't tell me. It's obvious that you don't have one, though, since you seem so unclear as to what a Microsoft NDA actually contains.

I have your email address so IF I want to help you out here, you'll get word of it. So far, I am not so inclined.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Licensing in this instance is by business manager and not a licensing contact. My NDA with Microsoft (and for Adobe and Macromedia, for that matter) prohibits me from discussing all sorts of details with other people. I signed the NDA and it's my obligation under law not to divulge this information. If you have an NDA, great! Then you can't tell me. It's obvious that you don't have one, though, since you seem so unclear as to what a Microsoft NDA actually contains.

I have your email address so IF I want to help you out here, you'll get word of it. So far, I am not so inclined.

Stop making stuffs up. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Stop making stuffs up. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Tell me, when did you get to read my NDAs?

[itai195]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Tell me, when did you get to read my NDAs?

What satisfaction do you get out of going around talking about your NDAs? If you weren't capable of providing more information, you shouldn't have mentioned Microsoft in the first place.

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by itai195:
What satisfaction do you get out of going around talking about your NDAs? If you weren't capable of providing more information, you shouldn't have mentioned Microsoft in the first place.

Maybe for the same reason that you ask rhetorical questions?

Brad keeps asking me to tell him who to talk to at Microsoft. I can't do that because of my NDA. I specifically mentioned the NDA because I was asked to provide information that I can't do so without violating said NDA.

I suggest that you learn to think before asking rhetorical questions if you do not want to appear foolish.

@Adam Betts: Violating an NDA is breaking contract law. If you feel like I am making all this stuff up feel free to sign an NDA and break it. Then tell me (if you can) how you like our court system.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by FurionStormrage:
Tell me, when did you get to read my NDAs?

Seriously, grow up. Bragging about your NDAs isn't going to gain you any credibility.

[a2daj]

And here I was thinking that Furion Stormrage was a Night Elf Arch Druid when he's actually just a troll...

[FurionStormrage]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Seriously, grow up. Bragging about your NDAs isn't going to gain you any credibility.

Do you have comprehension problems? I am by no means bragging about having NDAs.

If anyone needs to grow up, it's the person that linked to a noob9 graphic before editing his or her post.

Originally posted by a2daj:
And here I was thinking that Furion Stormrage was a Night Elf Arch Druid when he's actually just a troll...

You guys have obvious issues with porting network code. Apple doesn't seem to have any issue porting OS X over to the x86 platform. Linux and BSD doesn't seem to have any issues porting over from x86 to PPC. For that matter, the NetBSD distribution seems to have no real issue being ported over onto over 20 different chip platforms.

If you want to talk about credibility issues...