Jump to content


No more mac-only networking games!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
161 replies to this topic

#1 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:06 AM

Hey everyone  ;)

i'm a uni student who, in his free time, likes to do a fair bit of gaming. I love my mac, can only afford one computer so I support Apple. But most of my friends have PCs.

Which brings me to the point of my post. These guys are happy to play whatever games I have - it keeps things inclusive, and they realise the range of games isn't as extensive - but there are an increasing number of Mac ports coming out of games that will only network with other mac computers.

Now, I'm sure there are a hundred hard luck stories about why the developers were unable to do PC->Mac network play. It really doesn't bother me why. What irritates me is that the developers think that there are lots of Mac people out there that play lots of multiplayer games.

Compared to the PC world, we're a drop in the ocean. I recently bought C&C: Generals - only to find out that it only works Mac -> Mac. Took it back. Excited about the release of Homeworld 2. Bit more wary this time - check the box: Mac to mac network play only.

:evil:

It's embarrassing. I don't know about everyone else, and while it's improved since the iPod, there's the incessant "why didn't you buy a PC? Nobody uses Macs, they're not compatible!". You argue with it, then go out and buy a game - and guess what, the people you're arguing with are absolutely right. It's not compatible.

Do you think Apple would survive in a world where their browser only surfed Apple designed web pages?

Now, if there are reasons why some games won't be able to support network play with everyone out there, can I make an impassioned plea - can the developers focus their attention on games that allow us to play with the 99.95% of the online gaming world, as opposed to the 0.05% that these games support?

With few exceptions, which games come out really don't bother me. That they work with the rest of the world, who I want to play with, does.

And here, I'm making this pledge: I will not buy another Mac game that does not include PC->Mac multiplayer support. I encourage you to do the same, to send a message to the developers.

Thanks for listening :)

-- james
ps: yep, I've posted this on another forum, apologies if you've seen it twice :)

#2 electricdawn

electricdawn

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Location:Kaiserslautern, Germany

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:26 AM

IN BE4 TEH LOCK :wink:

Ok, seriously.

Do you know, that it's not the publishers fault, if a game, that they want to port, only supports Microshafts proprietory 'DirectPlay' network protocol?

And, sorry, you might not care about what game gets ported, I (and I think I'm not alone) do! Why only port games that no one wants to play (except maybe you), but has Mac - PC network compability?

I can tell you right away, that no one will care much about your pledge. Albeit I'm as angry as you about games that support only Mac - Mac play, there's not much that we (OR the porting house) can do about it.

If you want to blame somebody, try Microslurp. They're responsible for this mess. Noone else.

Greetings, Andreas.

#3 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:32 AM

Quote

IN BE4 TEH LOCK
I don't know why it should be locked. it's quite a reasonable topic.

Quote

Ok, seriously.

Do you know, that it's not the publishers fault, if a game, that they want to port, only supports Microshafts proprietory 'DirectPlay' network protocol?

And, sorry, you might not care about what game gets ported, I (and I think I'm not alone) do! Why only port games that no one wants to play (except maybe you), but has Mac - PC network compability?

Why port multiplayer games when there's virtually nobody to play them with is a much better question. Even the smallest PC releases have larger numbers of players playing them than the Mac-Mac releases only.

And I do care which games come over, but I have no say in it anyway. There's a large pool from which can be chosen. Pick ones that will work.

Quote

I can tell you right away, that no one will care much about your pledge. Albeit I'm as angry as you about games that support only Mac - Mac play, there's not much that we (OR the porting house) can do about it.

Oh yes there is. Vote with our feet. If nobody buys games that don't have universal multiplayer compatibility, then something will be done about it. Even if it means Apple has to go courting game developers.

I know I'm not the first one to be saying this, either.

There's an old saying I believe very firmly in. Do it properly, or don't do it at all.

-- james

#4 electricdawn

electricdawn

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Location:Kaiserslautern, Germany

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:50 AM

Ok, let's try that again.

So you don't care about all those big triple A titles that don't have Mac-PC netplay, for example like Dungeon Siege? (I don't play much internet mp, so I don't know that many titles, I know there's a big title that just came out, that doesn't support it, can't remember the name though.)

Do you even realize how much flak a publisher would draw, if they wouldn't port game "ZuperBlazang 3 : Return of the son of the Blazang" that everybody and their grand ma, AND their donkey wants to see on the Mac?

Do you want to ruin all those publishers and porting houses? Say, if a porting house is doing three triple A titles a year, and they have to drop one or two of them because they don't support Mac-PC networking. That would mean they make between 33% and 66% less money!

That probably would brake their back! Do you really want that? Or would you rather have them say, "Oh well, for Jamesa we will not port these games, yeah...right...erh, do you still have some money left to pay that friggin' bill?"

Besides, there's enough games out there, that still support Mac-PC networking, and even with the ones that don't, I think it's safe to bet that there's still quite a few Mac heads out there that play those games. Complaining that no one plays these games doesn't help. Get online and organize a clan, then you can play as much as you want.

Again, just my two euro-cents.

Greetings, Andreas.

PS: Mind, I hate that situation as much as you do. But complaining to the Mac game publishers and porting houses WON'T help. They're not in the position to make it happen.

It's the original PC game studio that programmed that game which uses DirectPlay (by Microsloth), because it makes things EASIER for them, understand? It's not because they want to piss you off, they just don't care much about the Mac market, and they want to get that game on the market NOW. And DirectPlay helps them to accomplish that. Sorry to burst your bubble.

#5 Whaleman

Whaleman

    High Priest of Bork

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5632 posts
  • Steam ID:holybork
  • Location:The Land of Bork
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:50 AM

It's no use. The plea would have to go to the PC developers to stop using a non-portable network protocol.

I know I for one is much happier to play great games with Mac users (or as more often in my case, alone) than not being able to play them at all. Multiplayer isn't the only aspect of a game, I even play UT2k4 against bots only to avoid the asshats and lamers that lurk out on the internet more often than I play it online. The game is still great.

Don't try to hurt the Mac publishers because they focus on the better games instead of the ones that they should be able to get cross-platform multiplayer. If they did we would not get titles like Generals, Homeworld 2, Raven Shield, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations and so on, and then PC user would be even worse on us, "Ha, you don't even get those games!", and is that really better than get crappy games that you can play against your PC using friends... if the game wouldn't have sucked so badly that they avoided it like cancer that is.

It is a shame that so many companies develop their games without Macs in focus, but trying to boycot their Mac ports to try to get them to change isn't working. If one of their games sell badly for Mac, why would we get the next one? But if it sells great, they might be convinced to think of us from the start with their following games and change the networking protocols to something that does work in a Mac-PC environment.

The Mac publishers does all they can, it's the PC developers that need to change... or Microsoft.
You shouldn't ask yourself such worthless questions. Aim higher. Try this: why am I here? Why do I exist, and what is my purpose in this universe?

(Answers: 'Cause you are. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one.)

***END MESSAGE***

#6 electricdawn

electricdawn

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Location:Kaiserslautern, Germany

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:53 AM

Right, Whaleman. That sums it up. Better than I could've said it... :wink:

Greetings, Andreas.

#7 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 06:57 AM

Quote

Do you want to ruin all those publishers and porting houses? Say, if a porting house is doing three triple A titles a year, and they have to drop one or two of them because they don't support Mac-PC networking. That would mean they make between 33% and 66% less money!  
I don't think you read my post. Nobody needs to be ruined - I'm asking that they focus where they can on games that will work cross platform. I'm sure that the porters have had enough experience that they know what will, and what won't, be cross platform capable.

Quote

That probably would brake their back! Do you really want that? Or would you rather have them say, "Oh well, for Jamesa we will not port these games, yeah...right...erh, do you still have some money left to pay that friggin' bill?"

On the flipside, should they release a game that costs in every instance more than the PC version, without the capability to play with 99.95% of the gamers out there?

Don't you think after the fact we're paying more we deserve better?

Quote

PS: Mind, I hate that situation as much as you do. But complaining to the Mac game publishers and porting houses WON'T help. They're not in the position to make it happen.

You're missing my point. I'm not having a go at them - this is more a request that they focus on the games that are likely to be cross platform compatible. I know they can't get blood out of a stone, and despite how much they want these games to be compatible they can't.

But it's getting to the stage now where a whole lot of porting companies just think it's acceptable to release mac-mac games. They're incomplete!

-- james

#8 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:00 AM

Quote

If one of their games sell badly for Mac, why would we get the next one?

Well, my decision does reflect this mentality. If their games without Mac-PC compatibility don't sell well, they'll hopefully stop releasing them. They only have a capability to release so many games per year, and I personally am voting with my wallet to say - focus your efforts on cross-platform games.

-- james

#9 Whaleman

Whaleman

    High Priest of Bork

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5632 posts
  • Steam ID:holybork
  • Location:The Land of Bork
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:11 AM

It's hardly 99.95% anyway. Too many PC users refuse to play anything but CS anyway (which to your great joy was scrapped since they felt it would be too hard to keep cross-platform networkable), and Apple's market share is a lot larger than 0.5‰. No need to exaggerate. 95-97% maybe, but that's a huge difference (and before people start to complain at pedantry, I do believe a 100 times difference (0.05% to 5%) is huge.)
You shouldn't ask yourself such worthless questions. Aim higher. Try this: why am I here? Why do I exist, and what is my purpose in this universe?

(Answers: 'Cause you are. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one.)

***END MESSAGE***

#10 electricdawn

electricdawn

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Location:Kaiserslautern, Germany

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:17 AM

Well, you did ignore the most important part, both in Whalemans and my post, that pretty much refute your point.

Whaleman (and I as well) said, that probably most gamers actually WANT these games on the Mac, no matter what. They will be angry, yes, but they rather want to play the game, albeit limited, rather then not playing them at all!

I said, that there's still enough games out there, where you are fully able to play against PC users.

Obviously you still don't get the point. If a game doesn't sell on our side, the original PC game developer will see no need to bring future titles to the Mac. Which means, we will see even less games, and Macintosh publishers and porters might fold up.

If, on the contrary, a game sells well, EVEN if it doesn't have Mac-PC networking, a Mac publisher just might be able to convince the original PC game publisher/developer to come up with a cross platform solution.

You forget, that you're on the wrong side of the stick, if it lashes out, YOU will get hurt, not the PC gamer/publisher/developer.

Sorry, if I come across a bit harsh. That's not my intention.

Greetings, Andreas.

#11 Whaleman

Whaleman

    High Priest of Bork

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5632 posts
  • Steam ID:holybork
  • Location:The Land of Bork
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:17 AM

Quote

Quote

If one of their games sell badly for Mac, why would we get the next one?

Well, my decision does reflect this mentality. If their games without Mac-PC compatibility don't sell well, they'll hopefully stop releasing them. They only have a capability to release so many games per year, and I personally am voting with my wallet to say - focus your efforts on cross-platform games.

-- james

But if those cross-platform games suck, you lose, they lose and we all lose on it. No, the Mac publisher's can't do very much. But if the PC publishers and developers can get their eyes opened for the added profit of a Mac game (with very little work since another company gets all the work), they might concider leaving DirectPlay if it's worth the extra development cost.

Again, I much rather see more great game than endless useless clones on the same game engine (that does support MP).
You shouldn't ask yourself such worthless questions. Aim higher. Try this: why am I here? Why do I exist, and what is my purpose in this universe?

(Answers: 'Cause you are. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one.)

***END MESSAGE***

#12 Mayhem

Mayhem

    Disturbed

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2104 posts
  • Steam Name:mayhem_swe
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:18 AM

News flash: The majority of game buyers doesn't care about multiplayer at all! You can choose to believe it or not, but that's the simple truth.

Porting houses would do a huge disservice to themselves by basing which games to port on weather they can be made cross-platform networkable or not, thus it ain't going to happen. Just get over it already.
Down with the Sickness

#13 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:19 AM

Quote

It's hardly 99.95% anyway. Too many PC users refuse to play anything but CS anyway (which to your great joy was scrapped since they felt it would be too hard to keep cross-platform networkable), and Apple's market share is a lot larger than 0.5‰. No need to exaggerate. 95-97% maybe, but that's a huge difference (and before people start to complain at pedantry, I do believe a 100 times difference (0.05% to 5%) is huge.)

1. The cancelling of the Mac port was NOT to my great joy. However, and from Gabe Newell's email: "It's disappointing to me on a personal basis that we won't ship Half-Life for the Mac. Everyone here, and I'm sure the people at Logicware are disappointed. The Mac gamers who were looking forward to Half-Life are undoubtedly disappointed as well. However that's a lot less disappointment than what would have happened if we had tried to get Mac gamers to accept second-class treatment on an on-going basis."

He's damn right. Cancelling it was better than second-class treatment on an on-going basis - which is exactly what we're getting at the moment.

2. I'm not talking about market share - I'm talking about gaming. Most people who play games online have a PC - more so than the PC market share would suggest. I don't believe my 99.95% would be much of an exaggeration with regard to the figures for PC gaming - 99.95% of people who game online use Windows. To get a gaming mac, you have to spend more, the games don't run as well because less time has been spent optimising them, and there are less games available. It then becomes catch-22. The mac only gaming situation only compounds this problem, adding another reason not to buy one.

#14 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:21 AM

Quote

News flash: The majority of game buyers doesn't care about multiplayer at all! You can choose to believe it or not, but that's the simple truth.

this is based on what exactly?

and if this were true, then why do virtually all games ship with a multiplayer mode if a "majority of game buyers" don't care about it?

-- james

#15 electricdawn

electricdawn

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Location:Kaiserslautern, Germany

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:31 AM

Quote

He's damn right. Cancelling it was better than second-class treatment on an on-going basis - which is exactly what we're getting at the moment.

Speak only for yourself. I would have still wanted Half-Life. But let's stop beating a dead (not only that, but a reallllly bad smelling, dead) horse.

I know that I'm second class when it comes to games.

And let me tell you what. Right now, I could care less.

All the good games I want come to the Mac. I hope it stays like that, even with the Mac-PC networking scenario. People like you will make the situation WORSE. You still don't realize, that we're NOT in a position to strongarm ANYBODY!

Again, think about it.

Greetings, Andreas.

#16 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:37 AM

Quote

Quote

He's damn right. Cancelling it was better than second-class treatment on an on-going basis - which is exactly what we're getting at the moment.

Speak only for yourself. I would have still wanted Half-Life. But let's stop beating a dead (not only that, but a reallllly bad smelling, dead) horse.

I know that I'm second class when it comes to games.

And let me tell you what. Right now, I could care less.

All the good games I want come to the Mac. I hope it stays like that, even with the Mac-PC networking scenario. People like you will make the situation WORSE. You still don't realize, that we're NOT in a position to strongarm ANYBODY!

Again, think about it.

au contraire, and I have thought about it. the only way to fix something is to do something about it. if you continue to accept that you're a second class citizen, pay more for the software, and expect less, do you think things will ever get better?

in my estimation, if things have to get worse before they get better, well, so be it.

I have a couple of other mac using friends and they're the same. and when I took back C&C generals to the store, a guy had a copy in his hand when he heard me complain I couldn't play it with my PC friends - he put it straight back down, got UT2k4 instead.

you know you hate the situation, and you're probably one of the hardcore gamers on the platform because you're here in these forums. but there are a lot of others who are put off by this. it might also account for the large piracy problem the platform has... it'd be interesting to compare how widely games get pirated on the mac with relation to their mac/pc networking capability. i bet there's a correlation (not condoning piracy, and I don't do it myself either)

-- james

#17 Whaleman

Whaleman

    High Priest of Bork

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5632 posts
  • Steam ID:holybork
  • Location:The Land of Bork
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:38 AM

Quote

Quote

News flash: The majority of game buyers doesn't care about multiplayer at all! You can choose to believe it or not, but that's the simple truth.

this is based on what exactly?

and if this were true, then why do virtually all games ship with a multiplayer mode if a "majority of game buyers" don't care about it?

-- james

Actually, according to a recent survey only 40% of computer gamers prefer solo gaming, it's first when you add the console gamers it becomes the majority. And if you want to cover online gaming and still say 99.95% use PCs, I've got bad news for you. About 10% use mobile gaming, and the rest of the 90% are shared between PCs, Mac, Xbox and PS. The survey doesn't mention how large the Mac portion is, but it's apparently huge enough to mention, 0.05% isn't. That's 5 per 10000. Which would mean that there's only 200 Mac users playing Wacraft III online at Lordaeron.
You shouldn't ask yourself such worthless questions. Aim higher. Try this: why am I here? Why do I exist, and what is my purpose in this universe?

(Answers: 'Cause you are. 'Cause you do. 'Cause I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one.)

***END MESSAGE***

#18 placebo

placebo

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 929 posts
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:47 AM

This should have been made a Sticky long ago: Mac/PC compatible games.

Let's start.

Battlefield 1942
Halo: Combat Evolved
Quake 3
Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004
Warcraft 3 (and Frozen Throne expansion)
World Of Warcraft


There are many more, post ones you can think of, and I'll start a thread that can hopefully become a reference Sticky.

#19 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:48 AM

Quote

Actually, according to a recent survey only 40% of computer gamers prefer solo gaming, it's first when you add the console gamers it becomes the majority. And if you want to cover online gaming and still say 99.95% use PCs, I've got bad news for you. About 10% use mobile gaming, and the rest of the 90% are shared between PCs, Mac, Xbox and PS. The survey doesn't mention how large the Mac portion is, but it's apparently huge enough to mention, 0.05% isn't. That's 5 per 10000. Which would mean that there's only 200 Mac users playing Wacraft III online at Lordaeron.

I should have better defined my target. I'm obviously talking about PC games here - things I can play on a desktop computer. Don't own, don't want a console, and mobile gaming is just a joke!

I'm not surprised about a majority of PC gamers spending their time playing online games.

Finally, about your Warcraft 3 quip. I'd quite like to pick up on this:
1. It's multiplatform multiplayer game, like a game should be. So it really doesn't matter how many mac gamers are on there, you're treated just like anyone else. as you should be
2. it's one of the few decent, recent, mac and PC multiplayer games. so of course it's going to have a higher concentration of mac gamers on it. if you want to play a "big" game with your PC friends online, what else would you suggest? everquest? :P
3. my 99.95% was not referring to one game, but all PC games. yes, there's some hyperbole in there, but I bet if you were to take a look at all PC multiplayer games, whether they had a mac port or not, we'd definitely be under 1%. easily in terms of time played (which counts when you want to find an online game).

-- james

#20 jamesa

jamesa

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 47 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Oz

Posted 19 October 2004 - 07:51 AM

Quote

This should have been made a Sticky long ago: Mac/PC compatible games.

Let's start.

Battlefield 1942
Halo: Combat Evolved
Quake 3
Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004
Warcraft 3 (and Frozen Throne expansion)
World Of Warcraft

There are many more, post ones you can think of, and I'll start a thread that can hopefully become a reference Sticky.

Obviously, anything by Blizzard! :) IIRC Diablo 2 and SC have been carbonized

Quake 1 (good for giggles)

Doom 3, when it's released. John Carmack wouldn't release a game that isn't cross-platform compatible

-- james