Obsidian, switch engines!

[mkreku]

I'm willing to bet Havok is somewhere in there.

Really? PhysX is free and it's got Nvidia hardware support. I would not bet on Havok.

[Flouride]

I'm willing to bet Havok is somewhere in there.

Really? PhysX is free and it's got Nvidia hardware support. I would not bet on Havok.

 

Well, didn't they hire a guy just to program Havok into their games around January? Or was it physics just in general.

[Morgoth]

Havok is pretty much a given these days, although not necessarily mandatory for an RPG (at least not Action RPG).

[Pop]

Back in the days of the Aliens RPG forum Sawyer laid out a bunch of the Middleware tech being used. I can't remember off the top of my head, but there were some of the big names.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Pop

[Zoma]

There was Face Gen middleware the same used in Mass Effect and some path finding thing that could be used to scale ceilings.

[mkreku]

Time to pimp CryEngine 3 yet again!

 

Forget about that Unreal 3! Forget about Onyx! This is where it's at:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/cryengine-...howcase?size=hd

 

Just do it.

[Morgoth]

No.

[Flouride]

Time to pimp CryEngine 3 yet again!

 

Forget about that Unreal 3! Forget about Onyx! This is where it's at:

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/cryengine-...howcase?size=hd

 

Just do it.

 

I would rather see and play an actual working game on Cryengine 3 before I would even think about licencing it. When is Crysis 2 even coming out and how badly will it run on normal computers and on Xbox360/PS3?

[nicethugbert]

Does Onyx do d20 rules, dual spellcasting, custom spellbooks?

[Oner]

Does Onyx do d20 rules, dual spellcasting, custom spellbooks?

Dunno, but I hear the tea it does make is excellent.

[Solo]

Not to turn this into a this and that OS bash so here's my opinion.

 

.NET was designed to run as well as it can on one OS. That OS is Windows. Since it is customized for Windows it does a grand job while bundle with DirectX as a tag team match. The Mac gets left back not only because of the Open GL deal but since the game industry its self has left it for DirectX and the toolsets of .NET.

 

That's why the Mac version of NWN never saw a toolset for it even though it was made native for the Mac. The toolset was made in .NET. So it boils down to this. Apple will get more serious (guess on my part) on the desktop and laptops when the game industry decides to. We have only Blizzard that seems that they have true heart to have supported and running games while other companies just put something out that is not runnable and then are quick to call the market dead or failing becausenot enough people are buying these terrible made games. Without naming names many should know just what I mean by this.

 

Apple has shifted to the iPod and iPhone devices simply because this little nitch is hot and ripe to experiment with. Again guesses on my part. Though with the release of Snow Leopard maybe now game makers will re-look at the Macs with their hardware not much different now then what the PC hardware is, not that they were that much different to begin with, we can se some support and or more honest interest of games for the Mac and of course Linux.

 

If not, I will simply say that NWN2 is my last computer game to have for my Mac. I don't want to rant for I really have some issues but this is not the site nor place for it. As said before, it is the IP holders fault for not seeing a bigger picture of how to expand when they could easily do so. I now understand why Windows has such a hold even though it has lost ground some. People are afraid to change. Things are simple now. One OS. One toolset made on that OS. The buyers owning said OS. Company makes money. Why? Only the people who have the OS will be able to play thus will buy the game. This forces others who do not have the OS to get the OS in order to play this game if they want to play. Doesn't matter if it's CrossOver, Parallels, or Fusion. The game is only in OS format.

 

Linux is a free os as I think Google's OS Chrome is too. Will they look at the possibility of these OS further because they in turn could help tweek the OS to run their own games better? Depends on the toolset I would think. Well since I very close to ranting as I said I wouldn't I shall end this here.

 

I know companies want to make money. Just give us consumers a chance to spend our money on your product even though we aren't Win OS users.

[LostStraw]

If Apple really pushed for it they could probably have the next console on the market. Their computers are essentially closed systems already which would make it easier for developers to test on. Game requirements would only need to list the Apple computer and OS required to play it and not any specific details, such as amount of RAM required and CPU speed, which can often confuse customers. Not to mention they already have a digital distribution system in place with the IPhone..

 

I don't think game publishers for AAA games will necessarily get interested in Apple Computers on their own though, simply because of the low install base. I think Apple needs to invest in getting publishers interested first, take them out to dinner, toss a little money their way, promise to help advertise their games, throw the egg out there so the chicken can hatch.

 

Unfortunately Linux can be fairly scary for folks -- it also doesn't have the advantage of being on a much more closed system like a Mac. In fact it has the problem (in this case) of being too open. As for Google Chrome OS, it will be aimed primarily at internet and web applications use so I don't think AAA games will really ever be targeted for it.

[Masterfade]

Apple is probably hoping the hardcore PC gaming market simply dies. Then everyone will be playing browser-based social games which run on mac just fine.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Not to turn this into a this and that OS bash so here's my opinion.

 

.NET was designed to run as well as it can on one OS. That OS is Windows. Since it is customized for Windows it does a grand job while bundle with DirectX as a tag team match. The Mac gets left back not only because of the Open GL deal but since the game industry its self has left it for DirectX and the toolsets of .NET.

 

Not all toolsets are written in .NET... it's a good rapid application development platform but it's not the second coming. I don't think, if we had to write our toolset in C++, we'd be crying. (Well, actually, GDI+ is kinda butts IMO so maybe we would, ha).

 

That's why the Mac version of NWN never saw a toolset for it even though it was made native for the Mac. The toolset was made in .NET. So it boils down to this.

 

Actually, if you're talking about NWN, it was written in Borland C++ Builder. We re-wrote the toolset in NWN2 in .NET for that among other reasons.

 

Apple will get more serious (guess on my part) on the desktop and laptops when the game industry decides to. We have only Blizzard that seems that they have true heart to have supported and running games while other companies just put something out that is not runnable and then are quick to call the market dead or failing becausenot enough people are buying these terrible made games. Without naming names many should know just what I mean by this.

 

Apple has shifted to the iPod and iPhone devices simply because this little nitch is hot and ripe to experiment with. Again guesses on my part. Though with the release of Snow Leopard maybe now game makers will re-look at the Macs with their hardware not much different now then what the PC hardware is, not that they were that much different to begin with, we can se some support and or more honest interest of games for the Mac and of course Linux.

 

Apple hasn't been serious about games *ever*. Like, since before MS Dos existed. The iPhone/iPod Touch is the first time that they've really ever been serious about gaming.

 

And honestly it's really all market concerns that drive these things. There's not a graphics programmer worth his weight who can't write in OpenGL, DirectX or another API. If Apple suddenly had 70% market share, you can sure as hell bet we'd be making Mac games. And that's assuming that you take the Consoles out of the equation...

 

Windows PC is the only development platform that you can develop both Xbox360 and PS3 games on, and if you're supporting those platforms the additional work to support Windows is pretty small.

 

If not, I will simply say that NWN2 is my last computer game to have for my Mac. I don't want to rant for I really have some issues but this is not the site nor place for it. As said before, it is the IP holders fault for not seeing a bigger picture of how to expand when they could easily do so. I now understand why Windows has such a hold even though it has lost ground some. People are afraid to change. Things are simple now. One OS. One toolset made on that OS. The buyers owning said OS. Company makes money. Why? Only the people who have the OS will be able to play thus will buy the game. This forces others who do not have the OS to get the OS in order to play this game if they want to play. Doesn't matter if it's CrossOver, Parallels, or Fusion. The game is only in OS format.

 

Linux is a free os as I think Google's OS Chrome is too. Will they look at the possibility of these OS further because they in turn could help tweek the OS to run their own games better? Depends on the toolset I would think. Well since I very close to ranting as I said I wouldn't I shall end this here.

 

I know companies want to make money. Just give us consumers a chance to spend our money on your product even though we aren't Win OS users.

 

The fact is, in many cases it'd be more expensive to develop and QA SKUs for Linux or OSX than you'd see in returns. It sucks, especially for those of us that prefer those platforms for general computing.

 

Again, the toolset doesn't have anything to do with it. I know our tools department could crank out great tools in Cocoa or whatever. It's all about the market.

 

At least we're at a point where you can dual boot the OS of your choice (regardless of whether it's Linux or OSX) and Windows.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Apple is probably hoping the hardcore PC gaming market simply dies. Then everyone will be playing browser-based social games which run on mac just fine.

 

Again, I don't really think Apple sees the Mac as a gaming platform at all, from what I've seen at least. I *do* think they see the iPhone/iPod Touch that way, though.

 

It's funny, because iTunes would actually be a great digital distribution/achievement/matchmaking service ala Steam if they ever did go that way.

[Humodour]

Apple is as rich as Microsoft (I think they might actually be richer), has multiple digital distribution services, ****loads of talented developers (both in-house and third-party), excellent development tools, a solid base market share (10% or so), good ties with major companies (Blizzard, EA, etc), excellent brand recognition and brand power, and a closed hardware environment rivalling that of consoles.

 

It's unfortunate that they don't act more aggressively in the gaming market (and I don't mean the handheld market).

[Masterfade]

Again, I don't really think Apple sees the Mac as a gaming platform at all, from what I've seen at least. I *do* think they see the iPhone/iPod Touch that way, though.

 

It's funny, because iTunes would actually be a great digital distribution/achievement/matchmaking service ala Steam if they ever did go that way.

 

Yeah, but they sure have realized many home users may choose PC over Mac because of the availability of games.

 

I don't have any data but it's a pet theory of mine that the recent rise in Mac's market share is related to the decline of PC as a gaming platform. I think it's in Apple's interest that hardcore, client-side gaming continues to fall on the mouse+keyboard front. so they can make availability of games irrelevant in the PC vs Mac choice without spending billions to promote Mac as a gaming platform.

 

Apple is as rich as Microsoft (I think they might actually be richer), has multiple digital distribution services, ****loads of talented developers (both in-house and third-party), excellent development tools, a solid base market share (10% or so), good ties with major companies (Blizzard, EA, etc), excellent brand recognition and brand power, and a closed hardware environment rivalling that of consoles.

 

It's unfortunate that they don't act more aggressively in the gaming market (and I don't mean the handheld market).

 

There's no way Apple is as rich as Microsoft. Apple's consumer electronics may have higher visibility but they're not as profitable as MS's enterprise software.

[Humodour]

I don't have any data but it's a pet theory of mine that the recent rise in Mac's market share is related to the decline of PC as a gaming platform.

 

That's a bit of a fail pet theory. PC hasn't declined as a gaming platform, it's actually increased, both in terms of annual profit and market share (spurred on by fresh new markets like Poland and Brazil).

 

No, Mac's market share revival is due to a number of factors, most of which come down to smart business moves on Apple's part. The biggest ones being the switch to x86 chipsets and the brand image revival inspired by iPhones, iPods, and iTunes.

 

I think it's in Apple's interest that hardcore, client-side gaming continues to fall on the mouse+keyboard front. so they can make availability of games irrelevant in the PC vs Mac choice without spending billions to promote Mac as a gaming platform.

 

Oh, yeah, because it's totally a zero-sum game, right?

 

Apple is as rich as Microsoft (I think they might actually be richer), has multiple digital distribution services, ****loads of talented developers (both in-house and third-party), excellent development tools, a solid base market share (10% or so), good ties with major companies (Blizzard, EA, etc), excellent brand recognition and brand power, and a closed hardware environment rivalling that of consoles.

 

It's unfortunate that they don't act more aggressively in the gaming market (and I don't mean the handheld market).

 

There's no way Apple is as rich as Microsoft. Apple's consumer electronics may have higher visibility but they're not as profitable as MS's enterprise software.

 

No, you don't understand.

 

Apple is definitely richer than Microsoft. Apple has something like $30 billion cash lying around compared to Microsoft's $20 billion.

 

Put it this way: Apply has enough spare cash to buy Electronic Arts 4 times, or perhaps buy Dell once.

 

Now, I wasn't talking about revenue or worth. Microsoft's revenue and market worth are each about 50% higher than Apple's.

 

Interestingly, Apple is worth about as much as Google.

[Masterfade]

That's a bit of a fail pet theory. PC hasn't declined as a gaming platform, it's actually increased, both in terms of annual profit and market share (spurred on by fresh new markets like Poland and Brazil).

 

No, Mac's market share revival is due to a number of factors, most of which come down to smart business moves on Apple's part. The biggest ones being the switch to x86 chipsets and the brand image revival inspired by iPhones, iPods, and iTunes.

 

I should have been a bit more precise and said 'the decline of PC as a gaming platform with exclusive titles', as what I purposed was games are becoming less of a deciding factor in the choice of PC vs Mac, and such decline helped Apple in expanding Mac's market share without actively promoting Mac gaming.

 

Personally, I wouldn't even consider buying a Mac in, say, 2000 partly because of most games I'd like to play are only available on the PC. Nowadays with 80% of games I'm interested in available on consoles, I sometimes entertain the thought of getting a Mac as my next primary computer.

 

 

Oh, yeah, because it's totally a zero-sum game, right?

I wasn't aware that taking advantages of competitors' falling is only possible in a zero-sum game.

 

 

No, you don't understand.

 

Apple is definitely richer than Microsoft. Apple has something like $30 billion cash lying around compared to Microsoft's $20 billion.

 

True if you define 'rich' as 'rich in cash'. I happened to approach the word differently.

[Humodour]

Eh, fair enough, perhaps I was being a bit tetchy.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

Apple is as rich as Microsoft (I think they might actually be richer), has multiple digital distribution services, ****loads of talented developers (both in-house and third-party), excellent development tools, a solid base market share (10% or so), good ties with major companies (Blizzard, EA, etc), excellent brand recognition and brand power, and a closed hardware environment rivalling that of consoles.

 

It's unfortunate that they don't act more aggressively in the gaming market (and I don't mean the handheld market).

 

I thought that claim sounded fishy, so I looked it up:

 

Apple's market cap: 168.46B

MS' market cap: 236.13B

 

Market cap is probably the best way to determine "size", wealth, or value of a corporation. So Apple's a big company, no doubt, but MS is significantly bigger. And, if MS needed the cash, they could relatively easily raise it by issuing stock. So I don't think it's really valid to say that Apple is richer - Apple has a lot of cash on hand. It's not like, however, if they then proceeded to buy back a bunch of stock and thus raised their stock price that they would be poorer.

 

I honestly just don't think that Apple really sees the computer as the place that people want to play games. Honestly, seeing sales figures of PC games over the past few years, I don't think that's a bad assumption.

[Nathaniel Chapman]

I don't have any data but it's a pet theory of mine that the recent rise in Mac's market share is related to the decline of PC as a gaming platform.

 

That's a bit of a fail pet theory. PC hasn't declined as a gaming platform, it's actually increased, both in terms of annual profit and market share (spurred on by fresh new markets like Poland and Brazil).

 

I haven't seen any evidence for this. In fact, all the reports I've seen say that PC sales have steadily been in decline for several years, however there is a significant question as to the accuracy of those reports because they do not include digital distribution.

 

Regardless, I actually agree that the PC market as a whole doesn't have much to do with gaming. I think Apple is doing well in the computer business because 1) their OS and hardware - particularly their notebooks - have been phenomenal in the last few years and 2) they have a massive halo effect from the iPod and iPhone.

[Masterfade]

I haven't seen any evidence for this. In fact, all the reports I've seen say that PC sales have steadily been in decline for several years, however there is a significant question as to the accuracy of those reports because they do not include digital distribution.

 

Regardless, I actually agree that the PC market as a whole doesn't have much to do with gaming. I think Apple is doing well in the computer business because 1) their OS and hardware - particularly their notebooks - have been phenomenal in the last few years and 2) they have a massive halo effect from the iPod and iPhone.

 

PC gaming is so diversified nowadays it's hard to qualify it as 'rising' or 'declining' without a specific context.

 

From what I've seen the core PC games market in developed markets of NA and Western Europe was declining, but the picture will possibly change if browser/social games are included. It will certainly change if emerging markets are included. People may not realize it, but the Chinese gaming market is worth around $4 billion a year, and it's entirely PC. On the other hand, those more inclusive data might be less relevant in a PC vs Mac discussion, since China (and possibly some other emerging markets) is not Apple's target market for Mac.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Masterfade

[Humodour]

Apple is as rich as Microsoft (I think they might actually be richer), has multiple digital distribution services, ****loads of talented developers (both in-house and third-party), excellent development tools, a solid base market share (10% or so), good ties with major companies (Blizzard, EA, etc), excellent brand recognition and brand power, and a closed hardware environment rivalling that of consoles.

 

It's unfortunate that they don't act more aggressively in the gaming market (and I don't mean the handheld market).

 

I thought that claim sounded fishy, so I looked it up:

 

Apple's market cap: 168.46B

MS' market cap: 236.13B

 

Market cap is probably the best way to determine "size", wealth, or value of a corporation. So Apple's a big company, no doubt, but MS is significantly bigger. And, if MS needed the cash, they could relatively easily raise it by issuing stock. So I don't think it's really valid to say that Apple is richer - Apple has a lot of cash on hand. It's not like, however, if they then proceeded to buy back a bunch of stock and thus raised their stock price that they would be poorer.

 

I honestly just don't think that Apple really sees the computer as the place that people want to play games. Honestly, seeing sales figures of PC games over the past few years, I don't think that's a bad assumption.

 

Yeah, I did point this out later on in my post by saying Microsoft is worth 50% more than Apple (the gap is actually smaller if you go by market cap but whatever).

 

Microsoft is theoretically richer than Apple because they can raise more, however Microsoft is extremely constrained by its shareholders. The last time they had significant amounts of cash lying around (about 2004) their shareholders forced them to get rid of it and they've been decreasing it ever since. Apple doesn't face such problems from their shareholders because they're currently growing a lot faster than Microsoft and the shareholders are content. I guess that can all change, though.

 

I don't have any data but it's a pet theory of mine that the recent rise in Mac's market share is related to the decline of PC as a gaming platform.

 

That's a bit of a fail pet theory. PC hasn't declined as a gaming platform, it's actually increased, both in terms of annual profit and market share (spurred on by fresh new markets like Poland and Brazil).

 

I haven't seen any evidence for this. In fact, all the reports I've seen say that PC sales have steadily been in decline for several years, however there is a significant question as to the accuracy of those reports because they do not include digital distribution.

 

I've heard from different people in the industry (both analysts and publishers) that PC gaming is a growth industry. Just the latest person is the CEO of EA: "PC... is actually growing faster than console, but it’s appealing to a bigger and different audience" - EA CEO John Riccitiello

 

But from what I recall, the gaming industry for 2008 grew at double digit rates for all sectors - PC, console, and mobile gaming. It comes back to zero sum games: this ain't one. PC gaming growth is stagnant (but I don't think declining) in developed countries but big in all the emerging markets (and there is a lot of them), while consoles are big in developed markets (but basically ignored in emerging markets).

 

I've also heard (from Valve, IIRC) that Europe in general prefers PC gaming to console gaming (unlike America and I guess Japan). I'll have to try and dig up some of the articles I'm thinking of later today, because I don't want this to just sound like a collection of anecdotes.

 

Edit: Of course, I don't have any special knowledge of how Obsidian's PC sales have performed, and if you do that would largely trump any other data for the purposes of this thread.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Krezack

[Solo]

Thanks for the clearing the myths from the non facts on what I posted in here. From all of this still bears the need for this question. When did all of this happen? I remember games for the PC, Tandy, Mac, Amiga, and Atari to name the computer hardware. Just in that alone many games were for many of those systems. When the OS started to change a bit for the PC and Mac I heard the rip was that of the graphic and coding difference. So many people were complaining about how good directX is and about intel that many bashed Open GL and the PPC.

 

Though through the comments in this thread. If the green light was given, a possible toolset and of course more games could be made? I still have to think that when there were games that at that time the Mac sale of games were bad then? When the PC and Mac were on par I don't remember such a difference. Granted I was young and the net wasn't around either. So again what was the main reason so many stopped working on the games for Mac? The PC was evolving as well as the Mac so there had to be a main reason I would think? There are more Macs now than before with a rather large crowd asking for games and yet they still say we are a small market that can't be bothered with? Again, I say this. There are more Macs than before but if the companies keep on passing us by we will enventually just forget it. That is the problem with NWN2. I hate to say this as well. NWN could have been even bigger if they would have allowed a toolset for both Macs and Linux users to use. There was a native build for the Mac so it should have had the toolset. Why couldn't it have been made?

 

Not to be yelling at you guys for you had no control over it. Just can't figure this out. They can do some of these things but they don't. They say it's not worth the time but we keep asking for it. Soon the numbers will go down not in the fact of not buying Macs but taking the game companies seriously that they will do something right in the first place. Again NWN2 is a perfect example of this. Keep giving the other systems haplf of what you do for the PC and yes in the end if you don't support the game you made people will not support you back and may just not buy any more games from you at all.

 

So maybe my head is thick or I simple just don't understand the game market. Just some of the reason I find hard to ecept as the main reason why it happens to non PC users more than PC users.