Jump to content


Empire at War


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#21 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 04 December 2006 - 12:29 PM

View PostGlendaAdams, on December 4th 2006, 05:48 PM, said:

Sorry, the reason I've kept mum until now is we don't have an official set of minimum requirements.

thanks for finally giving us an answer, Glenda. Its good to see that youre still trying to keep your PPC options open. I think that even if you limit to G5 minimum, then they should be able to power through the game, as theyve all got dedicated graphics. Even though it is just a 5200, itll generally be more capable than integrated rubbish..
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#22 Blackshawk

Blackshawk

    Narcissist Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Location:Blackshawk Inc.

Posted 05 December 2006 - 12:50 AM

I love the word "rubbish". If the Macbooks will be capable of handling this game, the G5's and probably late G4's should be as well.

And yes, I appreciate the answer as well. Well, comment anyways. You know what I mean.  ;) I'm glad I'm on Intel.
I Can't Feel My Torso Your Gaming Fix From Blackshawk

I'm going to the vet to get tutored.

#23 the_cloudgazer

the_cloudgazer

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 05 December 2006 - 02:28 AM

View PostGlendaAdams, on December 4th 2006, 07:48 PM, said:

Sorry, the reason I've kept mum until now is we don't have an official set of minimum requirements.  Until we have decided on those we won't be able to say whether it will support PowerPC's.   We haven't made the final decision, but I'd recommend looking at upgrading to Intel if you still have a PowerPC Mac in 2007.  I think next year we will see several Intel-only games, regardless of whether EAW is one of them, so it is going to be year to save up for a hardware upgrade.

Glenda

Thanks for the reply.

If you could see me now - I'm on my knees, hands clasped tightly, staring up at heaven.
Please, oh please, oh please make empire at war PPC compatible.
Anything you do after that can be intel only.
:)

#24 Guest_Red Guard_*

Guest_Red Guard_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2006 - 08:03 PM

View PostGlendaAdams, on December 4th 2006, 11:48 AM, said:

...but I'd recommend looking at upgrading to Intel if you still have a PowerPC Mac in 2007.
Intel Macs weren't released until this year and the whole line wasn't complete until recently with the release of Mac Pro.

I believe it's asking a little much to expect everyone, or at least the majority of us, to have Intel Macs after only being available for barely a year, especially when many of us who were unlucky enough to buy still very powerful PPC Macs just prior to the release of Intel Macs...

#25 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 02:33 AM

There's no way I'm buying a new computer anytime soon.  My current Power Mac is more than capable, and will remain so for some time, and besides that I need Classic.  (Seriously, for various reasons I cannot do without it at this time...not optional.  It's not that I like it, because I don't.)  So, I won't be buying any Intel-only games for a long time.  If that's the way the market really is already, so be it.  Maybe that gives me a fighting chance to catch up on my unplayed games anyway...but then again it also means no sales from this corner, sorry....

--Eric

#26 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17432 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 December 2006 - 10:35 AM

View PostRed Guard, on December 5th 2006, 06:03 PM, said:

especially when many of us who were unlucky enough to buy still very powerful PPC Macs just prior to the release of Intel Macs...
I purposefully bought a very powerful PPC Mac just prior to the release of the Intel Macs.  I wanted a powerful Mac that would run PPC stuff and I wanted to have a computer that would get me by until the opening salvo of bugs were squashed in the Intel line and the programs I needed were running natively.  I've still got at least a year left on this G5, figure I'll buy in on the 3rd version (second revision) of the Mac Pro line.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#27 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 01:27 PM

Unfortunately the Intel transition is putting both developers and users into difficult places.  I certainly understand not being able to upgrade (I bought a G4 powerbook for home about two years ago, and won't be able to upgrade it for at least another year).  But the tradeoff we as developers have is do we spend an extra 3 months on a given game to make it PowerPC compatible (it's not always about performance, sometimes that makes the decision for us, but sometimes its just a lot of extra coding/debugging to support two CPU architectures), or do we get it done sooner and out the door to the growing user base of Intel Macs.   Historically, recent computer buyers are the most likely to buy games, so it's often more important sales-wise to support the leading edge of new hardware than the trailing edge of older Macs.   The pressure to ship games sooner (from Apple and end users) does effect our decisions, as do potential sales (if we could easily make a game run on G3's, we would!).

We're doing our best to not leave PPC users out.  But some games are going to be Intel only in 2007, without a doubt.  All I can say is we're very aware of the market, and do our best to make the best decision we can given all the constraints.  I wish we could make everyone happy (universal games shipping simultaneous with lower Mac requirements than the PC), but we don't get that to happen very often :(
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software

#28 Guest_Red Guard_*

Guest_Red Guard_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 02:32 PM

View PostGlendaAdams, on December 6th 2006, 01:27 PM, said:

But the tradeoff we as developers have is do we spend an extra 3 months on a given game to make it PowerPC compatible (it's not always about performance, sometimes that makes the decision for us, but sometimes its just a lot of extra coding/debugging to support two CPU architectures), or do we get it done sooner and out the door to the growing user base of Intel Macs.
Thanks for putting things from the developer's POV in more specific terms.

I don't believe most of us realize it takes that much longer to make a game PPC compatible.

I believe most of us, including myself until a few months ago, bought into Apple's propaganda that creating a UB app is a matter of checking a box before compiling ;)

I am still crossing my fingers hoping EAW will be UB instead of Intel-only as I've been looking forward to this game for quite some time and was positively surprised when I heard it was coming to the Mac. I would also hate to spend another $3000+ for a new Mac Pro to replace my still very powerful PowerMac G5...

#29 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 02:48 PM

View PostRed Guard, on December 6th 2006, 03:32 PM, said:

I believe most of us, including myself until a few months ago, bought into Apple's propaganda that creating a UB app is a matter of checking a box before compiling ;)

It is, literally, just exactly that...as long as you're developing your game with Unity, anyway.  ;)

Quote

I would also hate to spend another $3000+ for a new Mac Pro to replace my still very powerful PowerMac G5...

The other thing for me, and considering that the only option is a Mac Pro, is that there are a couple of issues with the hardware that I'm not really happy about, like the situation with the memory.  I'm with tBC...it's going to have to be at least the second revision (or the third...).  I sort of get the feeling that they slapped the Mac Pro together with whatever they could get from Intel at the time, which limited their options.

--Eric

#30 bookman

bookman

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1580 posts

Posted 06 December 2006 - 02:48 PM

With the PC version selling for $19.99, and if the Mac version is Intel only, I see little incentive for people with boot camp to buy the Mac version for 50 bucks. You could get Empire at War and the expansion for the same price and start playing today.
Work: MacBook - 2.4 Ghz Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM - X3100 graphics.
Home: Mini - 2.0 Ghz Core2Duo - 2 GB RAM - GeForce 9400 graphics.

#31 Guest_Red Guard_*

Guest_Red Guard_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 02:51 PM

View Postbookman, on December 6th 2006, 02:48 PM, said:

With the PC version selling for $19.99, and if the Mac version is Intel only, I see little incentive for people with boot camp to buy the Mac version for 50 bucks. You could get Empire at War and the expansion for the same price and start playing today.
That's a very good point.

Intel Mac users already have access to PC games that are cheaper and readily available. PPC Mac users are the ones who would willingly fork over full price for a game that is released several months after the PC release, not including the expansion pack, yet we are the ones who probably won't get the game.

Go figure ;)

---------

Just another note...

I am assuming EAW's online game play won't be PC compatible and we'll resort to using GameRanger, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as there are enough players. Also, using GameRanger can even be a good thing because people get to know each other over time and it's simply more fun to play with or against people you know than strangers.

Now if EAW is released as UB, there will be more EAW players in general, which will attract more people to buy EAW for Mac, Intel or PPC Mac users, then there will be even more EAW players, and the positive cycle begins...

#32 Blackshawk

Blackshawk

    Narcissist Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Location:Blackshawk Inc.

Posted 06 December 2006 - 03:34 PM

Quote

With the PC version selling for $19.99, and if the Mac version is Intel only, I see little incentive for people with boot camp to buy the Mac version for 50 bucks. You could get Empire at War and the expansion for the same price and start playing today.
Good point, but I don't think that Bootcamp has permeated the market quite as much as we think. I still have yet to install it on my Macintel, although I do still keep a PC around for review purposes. Speaking of which, I'm going to pick up Empire at War sometime this weekend hopefully. Don't worry Glenda, I'll still buy it for the Mac.

I only ever buy PC games if they're coming out for Mac and I want to give people a PC-review to go by. The only exceptions I've made are Total War and Stronghold 2 (which was disappointingly buggy).
I Can't Feel My Torso Your Gaming Fix From Blackshawk

I'm going to the vet to get tutored.

#33 Pnin

Pnin

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Location:Wheat Ridge, Colorado

Posted 06 December 2006 - 10:51 PM

I would gladly pay $60.00 for a version that will run on my Amiga 3000.

#34 DesterWallaboo

DesterWallaboo

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 46 posts
  • Location:Utah

Posted 07 December 2006 - 03:15 AM

I sure wish Apple would dump the Intel graphics chipset and just put in a nice cheap 64MB ATI card... like the Radeon 9600 or X600 into the Mac Mini and Mac Book.

View Postbookman, on December 6th 2006, 01:48 PM, said:

With the PC version selling for $19.99, and if the Mac version is Intel only, I see little incentive for people with boot camp to buy the Mac version for 50 bucks. You could get Empire at War and the expansion for the same price and start playing today.


Except for the fact you have to have Winbloze installed on your Mac... ugh! no thanks.

#35 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 07 December 2006 - 03:33 AM

View PostGlendaAdams, on December 6th 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

The pressure to ship games sooner (from Apple and end users)

Apple puts pressure on you to ship a game sooner? I never would have thought.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#36 the_cloudgazer

the_cloudgazer

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 03:53 AM

Thanks for all that info Glenda.
(but you still aren't letting us know whether EaW will be PPC compatible)
;)

And yes, I think in 2007 it would probably be wise to port games to the Intel platform only.
But its not 2007 yet.

"Historically, recent computer buyers are the most likely to buy games, so it's often more important sales-wise to support the leading edge of new hardware than the trailing edge of older Macs."
But PPC macs are not that old, mactels haven't even been out a year yet.

#37 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 07 December 2006 - 04:04 AM

well, even though Apple dont expressly and explicitly announce their support of gaming, they do have a gaming section to their site, and realise that if theres a good few companies doing ports and hundreds of places making shareware, then they have to keep the mac looking current.

For these reasons, and their general work ethic of helping out developers for their platform, they will sometimes go out of their way to add OGL enhancements, but also encourage you to get things out sooner rather than later.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#38 Blackshawk

Blackshawk

    Narcissist Extraordinaire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1790 posts
  • Location:Blackshawk Inc.

Posted 07 December 2006 - 09:30 PM

Just remember, Aspyr, that up until a couple of months ago people were still purchasing PPC machines. I wouldn't mind seeing an Intel version first then PPC a month or so down the road.
I Can't Feel My Torso Your Gaming Fix From Blackshawk

I'm going to the vet to get tutored.

#39 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6094 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 08 December 2006 - 12:29 AM

Gotta agree. If it comes down to it, I think the best of borth worlds would be to release an Intel version, then have a UB upgrade when it's ready for PPC. Maybe even make it a pay upgrade, like an extra $5 (didn't MacSoft do that with the Halo UB?). From the consumer end, would I be willing to pay $55 for a PPC version of a $50 Intel game, two months later? Well, since I don't own an Intel Mac and likely won't have one soon, abso-freakin-lutely. I'd pay $60 even. What would be added is less than the price of a movie or two and it gets me a game I wouldn't otherwise have, and compensates the developer some for catering to me and my kind for an extra couple months.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#40 GlendaAdams

GlendaAdams

    Maverick Software

  • Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts

Posted 08 December 2006 - 10:17 AM

View PostFrost, on December 8th 2006, 12:29 AM, said:

Gotta agree. If it comes down to it, I think the best of borth worlds would be to release an Intel version, then have a UB upgrade when it's ready for PPC. Maybe even make it a pay upgrade, like an extra $5 (didn't MacSoft do that with the Halo UB?). From the consumer end, would I be willing to pay $55 for a PPC version of a $50 Intel game, two months later? Well, since I don't own an Intel Mac and likely won't have one soon, abso-freakin-lutely. I'd pay $60 even. What would be added is less than the price of a movie or two and it gets me a game I wouldn't otherwise have, and compensates the developer some for catering to me and my kind for an extra couple months.
This is certainly an option we've considered, for whenever we do make our first Intel only game.  We definitely don't want to just tell all the PPC users to go away if we can figure out a way to make it work.

Glenda
Glenda Adams
Maverick Software