PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Halo to PC, good-bye to Mac
June 19th 2000, 18:01 CEST by andy

[Please note: This story has since been shown to be incorrect. Details available here.]

Bungie Software in corporate bullshit shocker...



Having recently been snapped up by those loveable rogues at Microsoft, Halo developers Bungie Software spoke to Blue's News about the game's future. Now be careful when you read this or you might believe it:

Okay, the first thing everyone wants to know... what does this mean for Halo? Will it affect the schedule of the project and will the game still be released on the Mac?

It's important to understand two things:

The decision about what platforms Halo and future Bungie games will be developed for remains in the hands of Bungie Studios, in the hands of the teams developing them. In Halo's case the decision has not been made yet. The development team has a ton of options to consider, and that's what they're doing right now. They may choose to concentrate on one platform, to bring the game to every platform under the sun, or something in between. As of this writing we simply don't know what the answer will be.

We cannot promise that a Windows or Mac version of Halo will ship, but we can't rule it out either.

Apart from the Bungie rep not mentioning the second important thing that he thinks we should understand, there's something a bit weird about this answer...

Halo was announced at the MacWorld show in July 1999. The game was demonstrated by Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. Bungie's press release at the time stated:

Halo is being developed for simultaneous release on the Macintosh and Windows platforms. Already nearly two years in development, Halo is expected to ship in the year 2000.

Do a search for "+bungie +halo +mac" on a few search engines and then follow the links to any reports on respectable sites. Every report I've read says that the game will be released on the Mac, but I've not found one single statement from Bungie saying that the Mac version was only rumour, gossip, or in any way unconfirmed.

Put it all together and see what you've got: Until yesterday, the word from Bungie was that Halo would be released on the Mac -- no ifs, buts or maybes. As of today, following the Microsoft buy-out, the official word is that "the decision has not been made yet". How the hell do you develop a Mac game for three years without having decided that you're going to release it on the Mac?

Here's what I think is going on...

Bungie has always had an image as an independent developer and publisher. That status carries a lot of respect, so perhaps the worst thing to do as far as image was concerned was to get bought out by a large corporation. Especially when the corporation is Microsoft, and especially now.

Microsoft plans for Bungee to create Xbox games. While Halo, as Microsoft's new flagship game, will no doubt be released on the PC -- Microsoft's current market -- it is most likely that Bungie's future is primarily as an Xbox developer, and the Mac will not be a high priority.

So what happens to the Mac version of Halo? Cancelled, almost certainly. The PR weasels tell us that Bungie will continue as an "independent development studio" but let's face facts -- Microsoft owns Bungie, and if Microsoft doesn't want there to be a Mac version of Halo, there won't be one. Bungie isn't that independent.

And that brings us back to image. If the "fiercely independent" Bungie (as I've seen them described a few times) gets bought by Microsoft and then announces that Big Bad Bill has cancelled the Mac version of Halo, Bungie would end up being portrayed in da meeja as corporate whipping boys. "Ah well," we'd be thinking. "Another one bites the dust."

But this way, by insisting that the decision remains in their own hands, Bungie gets to issue a press release in a few weeks saying that (a) there will be no Mac version, (b) the decision was made by Bungie developers, and (c) it was made for quality†/ time†/ technical reasons. Nothing to do with Microsoft.

Brace yourselves: We're going to be lied to. Today was the groundwork.

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Halo to PC, good-bye to Mac

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Garett"
2000-06-19 18:11:48
garett@gte.net
First!  Now I am super lame!
#2 by "Garett"
2000-06-19 18:13:10
garett@gte.net
For the record, I totally agree here.  I will be shocked to see a Mac version now...
#3 by "fyrewolf"
2000-06-19 18:13:50
You know, for a while there, Bungie was about the only company that really considered the Mac a viable platform.  Other companies did do development for the Mac, but it was almost always as an afterthought.  Although I no longer use a Mac, I'm still saddened to see the company leaving the platform.

f.
#4 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 18:23:43
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
People seem to forget that MS has invested pretty heavily into apple the last few years, i would imagine they get some compensation for that investment.  Anyway I think a Mac version will still be released...at least for Halo since the code base is there for it already.  Now after that it's hard to say, does MS feel that apple is a competitor that eats into its profits or as a subsidiary of itself under a different logo.    <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#5 by "Diseased"
2000-06-19 18:32:27
diseasedanimal@yahoo.com
Weren't all the videos we have seen floating around the net of Halo all run on a Mac G3?  For them to abandon the platform the game it was originally intended for is some fucked up shit.  

Oh well, Apple just lost a huge ally in the gaming biz.
#6 by "asspennies"
2000-06-19 18:44:03
asspennies@coredump.org http://www.coredump.org
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft sell assloads of copies of MS Office for the Mac, as well as plenty of other software programs (and, incidently, mice)?

Microsoft has no aspirations of closing down Apple...far from it.  It's a big cash cow.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#7 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 18:47:52
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
asspennies said "Microsoft has no aspirations of closing down Apple...far from it. It's a big cash cow"

My point wasn't tht MS want's them shutdown, it was to offer up the question if they would release Mac games from bungie now<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "somebody"
2000-06-19 18:59:37
somewhere@else.com
I think the point is that Microsoft, who will
be desperate for a "killer game" for the X-Box,
will make Halo that game.  Of course, this by
defition means they won't publish it for other
platforms.
#9 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-06-19 18:59:50
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#6</b> "asspennies" wrote...
<QUOTE>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Microsoft sell assloads of copies of MS Office for the Mac, as well as plenty of other software programs (and, incidently, mice)?

Microsoft has no aspirations of closing down Apple...far from it. It's a big cash cow.</QUOTE>

Your not wrong, totally.  I always thought MS Office on the Mac was so that it would be easier for Mac addicts to switch platforms later on.  Divide and conquere.

V<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#10 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 19:04:16
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
I think in the article on gs that they said it would be released for the x-box then on the pc about a month later,  but no word about a mac version.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Andy"
2000-06-19 19:05:47
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#8</b>, somebody: Yep, spot-on.

<b>#9</b>, Vengeance[CoD]: Microsoft wants as many businesses as possible to use office, on any platform, because it helps them to control the market. It's all about proprietary file formats. If the majority of people are creating files in an MS format, most other people will need to use MS products so they can read them.
#12 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-06-19 19:06:39
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#9</b> "Vengeance[CoD]" wrote...
<QUOTE>Your not wrong, totally. I always thought MS Office on the Mac was so that it
would be easier for Mac addicts to switch platforms later on. Divide and
conquere. </QUOTE>

wow. I hadn't actually heard that take before (which is surprising because I know a lot of linux-heads). It actually fits with their profile to. Does anyone know if the products are only "almost" functional. ie does it bar you from doing a bunch of things that you could on win32 and pop up a message saying "Not available in Mac version" - or something similar? Perhaps some MS documents from the win32 platforma won't work on Mac ?? (ie looking for an angle that would make MS users think that win32 can do something better than mac)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "flamethrower"
2000-06-19 19:07:52
flamey_at_evil@hotmail.com http://flamethrower.evilavatar.com
As ever, the ansewr is at <a href="http://www.evilavatar.com">Evil Avatar</a>.

<QUOTE>
Blue's News: One question many people have regarding this announcement is simply...why? Bungie has always been a fiercely independent company, having self-published both Myth games, and last August, Take Two Interactive purchased a 20% stake in Bungie, so why, almost a year later, this decision to align with Microsoft?

Doug Zartman: For two reasons:

A. Microsoft is offering us the opportunity to lead the way on a next-generation console system. We will not only be one of the premier developers for the platform, but we'll be working directly with the Xbox team, helping to optimize the hardware and software for each other. We'll influence the design of the system; we'll help to ensure that the Xbox is the best platform to code for, and the most impressive console on the block. Such an opportunity does not come often. Bungie has always tried to keep abreast of the industry, if not ahead of it, and next-gen consoles seem like the place to be if you develop games. This deal allows us to get into that market in a big way.
</QUOTE>

Now, is it just me, or is giving one set of people preferential treatment to your OS/Hardware a decidedly <i>monopolistic</i> thing?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 19:08:19
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
I'd be curious to find out why Bungie decided to sell to MS. Was Bungie in financial trouble?

Myth 1 and 2 sold well, I thought, but then I was taken totally by surprise when Looking Glass bit the dust.

Or was it more like the case with Raven, where the owners, tired of dealing with cash flow troubles and the headaches of running the business side, decided to take the cash from Activision and go back to developing games?

Anyone know?
#15 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-06-19 19:12:30
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#12</b> "RahvinTaka" wrote...
<QUOTE>

<B>#9</B> "Vengeance[CoD]" wrote...

<quote>Your not wrong, totally. I always thought MS Office on the Mac was so that it
would be easier for Mac addicts to switch platforms later on. Divide and
conquere. </quote>

wow. I hadn't actually heard that take before (which is surprising because I know a lot of linux-heads). It actually fits with their profile to. Does anyone know if the products are only "almost" functional. ie does it bar you from doing a bunch of things that you could on win32 and pop up a message saying "Not available in Mac version" - or something similar? Perhaps some MS documents from the win32 platforma won't work on Mac ?? (ie looking for an angle that would make MS users think that win32 can do something better than mac)</QUOTE>

Well, first off I dont know a thing about linux, just so you dont think I'm biased :).  I think the functionality is the same or very close to the windows version.  I think they release the windows version first though.  If it were me and I were evil Bill, this is what I would do.  What until they are totally dependent on my products and then drop the Mac version.  Its very difficult to change platforms, so you need a good reason :).  You could import all your old data on your new Windows systems of course :-).

<b>#11</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>
<B>#9</B>, Vengeance[CoD]: Microsoft
wants as many businesses as possible to use office, on any platform, because it
helps them to control the market. It's all about proprietary file formats. If
the majority of people are creating files in an MS format, most other people
will need to use MS products so they can read them.
</QUOTE>

Yep, thats exactly what I was thinking.  Just taking it a step further.

V
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#16 by "JeffD"
2000-06-19 19:17:24
jefdaley@microsoft.com
There's more issues here at first glance.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that the GameSprockets API (Apple's answer to DirectX) has been all but totally yanked out of Mac OSX.  I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that the Mac version of Halo was developed using GameSprockets.

It's rather hard to develop a game for a platform with no gaming API.  In fact, these days no one does it.

I don't know for sure, but this may be a factor in Bungie's decision to yank Mac support (if such a decision occurs).  

Also, it is true that MS has made a large investment in Mac -- in fact, we recently announced that we're going to be developing Office 2000 and Internet Explorer 5.5 to that platform.

=JD<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#17 by "asspennies"
2000-06-19 19:20:39
asspennies@coredump.org http://www.coredump.org
<b>#13</b> "flamethrower" wrote...
<QUOTE>Now, is it just me, or is giving one set of people preferential treatment to your OS/Hardware a decidedly <I>monopolistic</I> thing?</QUOTE>

It's <i>monopolistic competition</i>, which is how %98 of businesses in the US operate.  It's not a full-fledged monopoly in the <i>trust</i> sense until a) you have complete control of the market and b) You're using that control in a negative way.  As well as plenty of other esoteric rules and regulations that I have neither the time to post or the knowledge to explain.

After all, Coke doesn't share its formula with Pepsi, Sony doesn't share the compentents for their DSS systems with Phillips, and Nintendo dosen't share their system architecture with Sony.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#18 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 19:25:24
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
All this monopoly talk is making me sick.  I use three different OSes at home. Win 98, RH linux and Be.  The only reason i still use 98 is the large support for it, can't play most games on anything else.  Microsoft has in no way forced me to buy it's product, and if they put another company out of business I leave it with survival of the strongest. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#19 by "Joost Schuur"
2000-06-19 19:33:39
jschuur@gamespy.com http://www.gamespy.com
Does it occur to anyone that Microsoft produced Office for the Mac?

What bigger precedence could there be for them to support the Mac with Software?

Why would they not produce a mac version if they have the expertise in house and it's easy to do? Anything that sells more copies of good.
#20 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-06-19 19:37:16
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#18</b> "catfoochoo" wrote...
<QUOTE>
Microsoft has in no way forced me to buy it's product, and if they put another company out of business I leave it with survival of the strongest. </QUOTE>

This is perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  Thats all i have to say about that....

V

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#21 by "Vengeance[CoD]"
2000-06-19 19:38:22
rhiggi@home.com
<b>#19</b> "Joost Schuur" wrote...
<QUOTE>

Does it occur to anyone that Microsoft produced Office for the Mac?

What bigger precedence could there be for them to support the Mac with Software?

Why would they not produce a mac version if they have the expertise in house and it's easy to do? Anything that sells more copies of good. </QUOTE>

heh heh, full sentences (complete thoughts) please.


V<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#22 by "Andy"
2000-06-19 19:40:27
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#19</b>, Joost Schuur:
<QUOTE>
Does it occur to anyone that Microsoft produced Office for the Mac?
</QUOTE>
You naughty boy, you didn't read the comments before posting, did you? ;-)
<QUOTE>
What bigger precedence could there be for them to support the Mac with Software?
</QUOTE>
Office on the Mac helps Microsoft increase its market share. Halo on the Mac, <b>long term</b>, doesn't.

They're not bothered about what's happening this time next year, they're more interested in three years from now.
#23 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 19:42:56
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
<b>#22</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>Office on the Mac helps Microsoft increase its market share. Halo on the Mac,
<B>long term</B>, doesn't.

</QUOTE>

It does after thet release Halo 2 for the x-box and pc only.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 19:46:42
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
From the <a href=http://www.bungie.com/faq.shtml> Bungie Acquisition FAQ</a>:

<quote> The business of publishing entertainment software independently has changed enormously since Bungie started. Bungie was not in immediate danger of going under, but we realized that within a few years we'd need a strong partner if we wanted to keep making games the way we always have. We opted to make what we saw as an inevitable move while we were still in a position of strength, rather than wait for circumstances to force our hand. The ultimate goal is to ensure Bungie continues to exist and continues to produce the high-caliber games for which it is known. </quote>

This deal makes sense to me  now. Bungie saw the future of PC Game development and didn't like it. To get into the console world, they needed a big partner - MS. Bungie gets cash, an inside shot at what could be a big game system and still gets to operate fairly independently.

Don't laugh. Say what you like about MS' ethics and technical skills, it's tough to dispute that they are smart business folks. Bungie's apparently done well on its own, so if it ain't broke, MS won't likely try to fix it ... until Bungie starts putting out games that don't sell. As far as MS <b> forcing </b> Bungie to put out games exclusively for the x-box, it sounds like Bungie had something that in mind for a while.

I can't say I blame Bungie, if they thought it was in their best interest, though I'll miss playing Halo if they decided to go x-box only. Still, I don't understand the trend toward console development, though. Seems a lot of successful developers don't like the look of the PC market. Would some developers care to explain why?
#25 by "Apache"
2000-06-19 20:00:28
apache@warzone.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
MS buying Bungie = lots of delayed future X-Box games.
#26 by "Andy"
2000-06-19 20:01:35
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#24</b>, Jeff:
<QUOTE>
Would some developers care to explain why?
</QUOTE>
I'd like to have a stab at that one. Let's see if any developers will back this up: The PC market ain't much fun.

The console market is still somewhat similar to the old 8-bit market, and the early days of the 16-bit market: you're developing for one machine with no variations; your goal is to make fun games and that's all people ask for; console mags are still popular and they treat console developers with respect instead of disdain; console games in general take less time and effort to create, require less expertise and often less staff, but can still compare well to PC games as far as gameplay is concerned.

If I were a PC developer... I wouldn't be.

Whenever I hear of a development house moving towards console work, I smile a little smile and wish them the best of luck, because I'm sure they'll have a lot more fun and get a lot more satisfaction from their work, without all the stress of hardware problems and us lot bitching at them.
#27 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 20:17:45
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
Eh ...  Andy, I doubt Bungie wants to develop for a console because they'd get more respect from the console community than the PC folks.

They support their fans and like to be liked, sure, but you don't sell your company to MS so people will like you better. ;-)

The rest of what you say, though, makes sense to me - development for a single machine removes a lot of headaches, support is easier, etc. But it seems to me that the <b> market </b> must be changing for so many fairly high-profile developers to shift their attention.

They make games, but they're business people too.
#28 by "Matthias Worch"
2000-06-19 20:28:32
mworch@legendent.com http://www.langsuyar.com
<quote>The only reason i still use 98 is the large support for it, can't play most games on anything else. Microsoft has in no way forced me to buy it's product.</quote>

Don't those two things not contradict each other? You can't play your games without Win98, and yet MS didn't force you to by any of their products?
#29 by "Talion"
2000-06-19 20:28:56
talion6@hotmail.com
<b>#14</b> "Jeff" wrote...
<QUOTE>I'd be curious to find out why Bungie decided to sell to MS. Was Bungie in financial trouble?

Myth 1 and 2 sold well, I thought, but then I was taken totally by surprise when Looking Glass bit the dust.

Or was it more like the case with Raven, where the owners, tired of dealing with cash flow troubles and the headaches of running the business side, decided to take the cash from Activision and go back to developing games?

Anyone know? </QUOTE>

In interviews Bungie people have said that although they could publish (remember they are both developer and publisher of their games) Oni and Halo on their own resources, when they looked at things a few years down the road the outlook was not rosy.  In other words, they insinuate that in two or three years, they'd be in the same situation as Looking Glass: backs against the wall.  Instead of letting things reach that point, they're getting out while the going's good so that they can command a better price.

Of course they also spout a bunch of (IMO) rubbish about how the X-box is so wonderful and they just couldn't miss the opportunity to "shape" its development.  Whatever.  I can't imagine them giving up ownership if they didn't have financial problems of some kind, even if they were only looming a year or so down the road.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#30 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 20:33:38
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
<b>#28</b> "Matthias Worch" wrote...
<QUOTE>Don't those two things not contradict each other? You can't play your games
without Win98, and yet MS didn't force you to by any of their products?

</QUOTE>

I don't own a single MS produced game.  But if i want to play HL i better have a win box laying around.
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "Talion"
2000-06-19 20:37:08
talion6@hotmail.com
Here's a quote from a post made by Matt Soell, a Bungie rep, on the major Bungie fan site's forums.
<QUOTE>
 Is Halo now X-box exclusive? X-box oriented?

No decisions have been made yet about the future of Halo. Really. Everyone seems to have a hard time believing this, but it's true. The team gets to figure out what they want to do.

What about the Mac version? The PC version?

Right now, I honestly don't know. No one does. The Halo team has yet to figure out how they want to spend their time in light of this new development. Obviously we've already done a lot of work on those two versions, and nobody wants to just chuck them entirely. When the team figures out their plans, including the what/where/how of the Mac/PC versions. I will post them.

What about the "platformic
 width" of future projects? Does Bungie now believe that
 consoles are the future of gaming?

If by "platformic width" you mean the range of platforms available for us to publish on, it's as wide as it's ever been. We make those decisions.
</QUOTE>

I've read this "we decide" stuff so much I almost believe it.  The "nobody wants to just chuck them entirely" to me means, "delay release to months after X-box."  One thing a lot of people here may or may not know is that before all this Bungie liked to talk about how it was committed to supporting as many platforms as possible for their games.  They developed (starting with Myth) for Mac and PC, and had Myth II ported to Linux.

Now it's "we will decide."  They won't even guarantee a Windows version of Halo.  As a Windows user (for games at least) and someone who isn't much of a console fan, that's my main interest.  I'm not ready to throw around conspiracy theories, but it's odd.  Remember, the Mac and Windows versions of Halo were 60% done...far enough along that the PCXL people got to play multiplayer over the LAN...everything seemed to be finished except the single player campaign.

Before the buyout, the development team for Halo HAD CHOSEN both Windows and Mac.  Now suddenly they need to decide again.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#32 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 20:47:53
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
<quote> I don't own a single MS produced game. But if i want to play HL i better have a win box laying around. </quote>

So Sierra and Valve forced you to buy Win 98? Wonder why they developed only for an MS OS? Hmmm.
#33 by "None-1a"
2000-06-19 20:50:23
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a/
I really can't see why Ms would want Bungie in the first place. I know why they wanted an in house developer (they currently have no game development under the MS name, just publishing), but Bungie doesn't seem to fit well with what they wanted a developer for in the first place (stop the first party and Japanise support issuse).

<QUOTE>Don't those two things not contradict each other? You can't play your games without Win98, and yet MS didn't force you to by any of their products? </QUOTE>

No they don't unless your only using stuff from MS. MS doesn't have control over what id, epic, raven, etc. do and cannot force them to develop just for windows. The only real limmiting factor is MS' domanice in the OS market, but then again Apple draging their feet in the post Mac (1984 version) let that happen.
#34 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 20:53:49
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
They developed for the MS OS because most people use it.  Most people used it originally because of DOS/Win 3.1. When 95 came there was nothing that competed against it on the xxx86 platform (please don't mention os/2).  Linux is much to complicated for most end users, Be has no game support and the Mac OS only runs on the Mac.  Now if more game developers wrote for linux i would not buy many/any win games, but as it stands I either buy it or don't play.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Warren Marshall"
2000-06-19 21:04:06
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicgames.com
Andy is pretty much spot on from where I sit.  People are always complaining about GameX not working with CardY or APIZ or whatever ... Consoles don't have this problem.  One platform, one set of hardware, one API, etc ... it's not exactly tough to get it right under those conditions.  And the consoles of today are plenty powerful enough to drive the games people want.  Hell, with USB support, keyboard and mice become a possibility for controlling those games.

So any developer that decides to develop for consoles is making a smart move ... they really can't lose.  The platform is completely stable, there won't be any new drivers released for the hardware, they can be guaranteed that the way the game performs/looks/etc on their machine is EXACTLY how the end user is going to experience it.  No exceptions.

It's enough to bring a tear to the eye.  ;)
#36 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 21:09:00
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
#34 catfoochoo

Right. So because MS has a virtual monopoly on the OS for the mainstream PC market, mainstream game developers have to develop for the MS OS if they hope to sell enough games to survive. There are other OS, yes, but they're mainly marketed to techies or other niche audiences. No one, not even Apple, can really challenge MS's OS lock.

So then, doesn't MS' market dominance force you to buy their product to play games?
#37 by "RzE"
2000-06-19 21:10:30
rze@counter-strike.net http://csnation.counter-strike.net
<quote>So Sierra and Valve forced you to buy Win 98? Wonder why they developed only for an MS OS? Hmmm.</quote> Will you stop saying stupid things

If linux had the market share, HL would be a linux product, period
#38 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 21:12:26
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
<b>#36</b> "Jeff" wrote...
<QUOTE>

#34 catfoochoo

Right. So because MS has a virtual monopoly on the OS for the mainstream PC market, mainstream game developers have to develop for the MS OS if they hope to sell enough games to survive. There are other OS, yes, but they're mainly marketed to techies or other niche audiences. No one, not even Apple, can really challenge MS's OS lock.

So then, doesn't MS' market dominance force you to buy their product to play games? </QUOTE>

I play Q3A on my linux box, but Linus didn't make me do it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 21:12:32
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
#35 Warren

So what do you see for the future of PC gaming?
#40 by "Brandon 'GreenMarine' Reinhart"
2000-06-19 21:19:41
brandonr@3drealms.com http://www.3drealms.com
Its not that the PC market isn't much fun, its that it is very cut throat.  You have to make smart decisions or you die and sometimes you die anyway.  If Microsoft or any other large company waves enough money in front of a PC developer's face, they'd probably jump at it.  A few companies, like id, are immune to this.  But there is only one id.

Truth be told, I think a lot of companies just don't understand the PC market and they don't understand how to take advantage of it or be successful in it.  I think the rockstardom in the PC industry has detracted from quality.  I think too many people bite the short term gains and lose out on the long term stability.  I think publishers don't understand what gamers want to buy or how to sell their products.  I think too many people in the PC game industry want it to work like Hollywood.

The past four years are a testimony to the fact that there is little realism in the PC industry.  Those companies that have found their stride, like Blizzard and Black Isle are able to consistantly <I>design</I> and <I>produce</B> quality products.  Those companies that base their development cycles on obviously unrealistic goals fail and fail consistantly until they die.  Would you want to make games in that environment?  You might think you are smart, but smart people have come before you and failed.

Even with that in mind, I don't think the console industry is free money.  It just benefits from strong platform competitiveness.  If you are a kick ass PC developer, every console hardware developer wants to put a couple million in your hand to be their exclusive butt buddy.

Remember: <I><B>There is only one id.</B></I> Everybody thinks they can be the next id and they abuse their company and their employees trying to attain that goal.

The bottom line is that PC game companies require good software development and a strong shit filter to survive and hardly anyone possesses those skills.
#41 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 21:19:57
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
<quote>I play Q3A on my linux box, but Linus didn't make me do it. </quote>

Yeah, but id is the exception. They've got gobs of cash on hand as well as John Carmack, a programmer who likes being a tech pioneer, likes Linux and has the resources to push through a port.

The argument isn't really whether MS <b> makes </b> you buy their product. No one makes you play or buy anything. If you choose to play only the games released for Linux, more power to you. But if you want to play 90% of the games out there, you've got to buy a Win OS because MS controls upwards of 80% of the OS market. MS has a monopoly.
#42 by "Brandon 'GreenMarine' Reinhart"
2000-06-19 21:20:21
brandonr@3drealms.com http://www.3drealms.com
Whoops. Forgot to close one of those italics tags.
#43 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 21:24:16
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
<b>#41</b> "Jeff" wrote...
<QUOTE>MS has a monopoly</QUOTE>

Do you know what a monopoly is?  Microsoft has no more a monopoly than Ford or Honda.  Don't mention choice when talking monopoly it kills the argument before it has started.  <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 21:30:29
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
To be a monopoly, you don't have to control 100% of a market. 80 or 90% will do just fine if you want to kill off potential competitors, especially when you control more than 80% of a core tech like the OS.

Besides, if you've got so much choice, explain to me again why you bought Win 98 in the first place?
#45 by "Apache"
2000-06-19 21:30:46
apache@warzone.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
X-box needs a good exclusive title, Halo could be it.
#46 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 21:38:32
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
<b>#44</b> "Jeff" wrote...
<QUOTE>

To be a monopoly, you don't have to control 100% of a market. 80 or 90% will do just fine if you want to kill off potential competitors, especially when you control more than 80% of a core tech like the OS.

Besides, if you've got so much choice, explain to me again why you bought Win 98 in the first place? </QUOTE>

According to webster a monopoly is:
<i>Main Entry: mo∑nop∑o∑ly
Pronunciation: m&-'nš-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
Date: 1534
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party</i>

IMO MS does not meet that criteria.  The only monopoly in the U.S. id the government, but I won't get into that right now.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#47 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 21:40:12
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
#37 RzE said:
<quote> Will you stop saying stupid things

If linux had the market share, HL would be a linux product, period</quote>

Er ... right. That's my point.
#48 by "Jeff"
2000-06-19 21:48:30
jeffmill@bellsouth.net
#46

We can quibble over definitions, if you like, but it's tedious.

Websters New World dictionary has: "1) exclusive control of a commodity or service in a given market, <i> or control that makes possible the fixing of prices and the virtual emlimination of free competition </i>"

Sorry for the diversion. Back to the regularly scheduled "future of PC games" programming.
#49 by "asspennies"
2000-06-19 21:50:52
asspennies@coredump.org http://www.coredump.org
<b>#46</b> "catfoochoo" wrote...
<quote>According to webster a monopoly is: </QUOTE>

Well, Webster doesn't interpret the law.  You'd have to look in a legal dictionary for a more distinct and truer definition of what a monopoly is, especially one that violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  

Sometimes a simple definition doesn't cut it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#50 by "catfoochoo"
2000-06-19 21:53:01
catfoochoo@yahoo.com
Developers not making games for Linux is a money issue not a monopoly issue.  Most companies don't have the money to code a game for 3 OS plus 3 consoles.  So they write for the ones that make money.  MS makes money for these people because no other OS is as easy to use as Windows, except Mac OS.  The problem Apple is having was a result of the high entry level price they used to have.  With the introduction of the iMac though it is becoming harder for PC developers to ignore this platform.  Linux on the other hand is relitively new to the PC marketplace, and it shows that in driver support, ease of installation and ease of use.  Most GUI for Linux are very powerful but power is not what most users want.  They want ease of use and ease of setup.  If Linux becomes plug and play and if some true standards can be implemented the amount of "casual" users of it will sky rocket.    <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Halo to PC, good-bye to Mac

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]