Game Guides Archive
Thread: Apple MAC version of SWG
Page 2 of 2
Aroma
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:43 am
#14
We qould need an entire separate dev team to code for the mac. And most would argue that we need that many more people jus tto fix the PC version.
ObiQuixote
Thu Sep 02, 2004 11:58 am
#15
Converting the client to the BSD Mac OS wouldn't be such a huge task for a small competent team. Most of the work would be converting the graphics engine to Open Gl from DX.*
In general, Mac developers are a little more in tune with good interface design and Mac user are little more b1tchy about bad interface design, so some good might come out of it for the PC client. And it would provide a boost opening up the game to a new group of users that couldn't play the game before
If it would be profitable that is a different question.
Get all my work done on macs, It's nice when games get ported to them because I would rather use the Mac. The PC is just my Desktop X Box for the most part.
In general, Mac developers are a little more in tune with good interface design and Mac user are little more b1tchy about bad interface design, so some good might come out of it for the PC client. And it would provide a boost opening up the game to a new group of users that couldn't play the game before
If it would be profitable that is a different question.
Get all my work done on macs, It's nice when games get ported to them because I would rather use the Mac. The PC is just my Desktop X Box for the most part.
Sevarhin
Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:21 pm
#16
/sign
But it's far too late. If they had coded the game for OpenGL (as Blizzard did for WoW... which works beautifully on both platforms -- way to go Blizzard!), cross-platform support would be a given. They didn't, and they have no Mac development nor OpenGL experience.
Even Everquest on the Mac was canned after a few months due to the insane idea of making a whole new server just for them (bifurcating a "social" game is a seriously bad idea for anything other than overcrowding reasons - I just wonder if they have the slightest clue they killed it themselves by doing that).
But it's far too late. If they had coded the game for OpenGL (as Blizzard did for WoW... which works beautifully on both platforms -- way to go Blizzard!), cross-platform support would be a given. They didn't, and they have no Mac development nor OpenGL experience.
Even Everquest on the Mac was canned after a few months due to the insane idea of making a whole new server just for them (bifurcating a "social" game is a seriously bad idea for anything other than overcrowding reasons - I just wonder if they have the slightest clue they killed it themselves by doing that).
Sevarhin
Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:23 pm
#17
MagicalMonkeyMop wrote:I wouldn't really care. Macs suck for games; they're more for movies etc. But still, I don't want to keep the Macintosh people out of this experience- though I doubt the DEVs will do anything due to that Mac owners are in a minority; and usually when people buy them they don't want to do gaming. *Gets ready to fight back the flames about to occur*
There's no need to flame such an obvious troll.
That would be called "taking the bait".
Message Edited by Sevarhin on 09-02-2004 01:24 PM
ZonJaiNezBA
Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:25 pm
#18
No
I don't care to have the Devs waste time making sure both versions of code work. I think we would be introducing too many new problems. It was stated a long time ago by a Dev (Q3PO I think) that there is no plans for a MAC version of SWG in the next few years.
Now after 3 years and they feel they have most of the systems working correctly, then I wouldn't mind if they put out a poll regarding it.
Of course by then, MACs won't be around anymore 
Cypher073
Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:56 pm
#19
While I personally would love to see a port to OSX, I don't think it's feasible. As others pointed out, Sony has their hands full with the x86 version of the game, and there would be very little code reuse between the two versions -- the platforms are just to different.
Also, does anyone remember the Everquest Mac fiasco? Not that I ever played EQ on the PC, but I got a free copy of this joke when I got my .mac account a year or so ago. Horribly bad idea...they mac version even had its own servers, which were barren of course cause nobody wanted to play an MMO that was ported to the Mac like 5 years too late.
Also, does anyone remember the Everquest Mac fiasco? Not that I ever played EQ on the PC, but I got a free copy of this joke when I got my .mac account a year or so ago. Horribly bad idea...they mac version even had its own servers, which were barren of course cause nobody wanted to play an MMO that was ported to the Mac like 5 years too late.
Cypher073
Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:57 pm
#20
GotEgg wrote:I was actually thinking about this on my way to work this morning with my shiny brand new Powerbook G4 17" monsterI think the main problem is the closed architecture of the Mac - Writting 3D apps for the PC is a breeze thanks to directx and opengl - it's not nearly as easy on the mac. - Not to mention that the mac is unix based, which adds a whole other layer of complication to high end 3d programming.When the apps are developed correctly, the mac will handle them without skipping a beat, but the issue is the HUGE cost associated with developing on the mac.I would like to see it, but will not be surprised when it doesn't happen.
Um..OSX uses OpenGL for it's high end 3D development.
omnigon
Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:54 pm
#21
If you tracked SOE's pathetic attempt at putting EQ on the Mac platform and it's Ultimate demise (yes I realize people are still playint EQMac, but it's unsupported and not expanding) then you'll realize this is a bad idea. Many mac users may think it's good, but the amount of financial and man hour resources just to make the port then to support the platform alone would make it fiscally unviable. Not to mention if you want mac players to play on the same servers as PC players it's even worse.
My response; NO, don't bother. I'd rather see the devs use their resources trying to fix this version and make it fun.
KaylBreinhar
Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:22 pm
#22
I still remember when SWG was supposed to be like FFXI and be available for PS2 and XBox - god, *that* would have been a nightmare.
Aroma
Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:10 am
#23
ObiQuixote wrote:
Converting the client to the BSD Mac OS wouldn't be such a huge task for a small competent team. Most of the work would be converting the graphics engine to Open Gl from DX.*
In general, Mac developers are a little more in tune with good interface design and Mac user are little more b1tchy about bad interface design, so some good might come out of it for the PC client. And it would provide a boost opening up the game to a new group of users that couldn't play the game before
If it would be profitable that is a different question.
Get all my work done on macs, It's nice when games get ported to them because I would rather use the Mac. The PC is just my Desktop X Box for the most part.
Whats wrong with this statement when referring to anyone who works at SOE?
SharkBoy007
Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:39 am
#24
ElGranPistolero wrote:
Agreed they would have to create a whole new user fees system for Mac users to suppport a QA Team to test and report bugs on the Mac Side. Right now there aren't enough QA Testers on the PC side to do it. So the Mac Version is not cost/effective. The user base simply could not support an increased user fee for Mac's
Pharrel
And if theyaren't willing todo something as simple as upgrade/add more servers, what makes you think they'd do this. Of course, LucasArts could always choose a different development house to do the code for Macs, in which case we might possibly see a better version of the game. If that were the case, it would be a guaranteed Mac sale for me
Mox Shehalis
ObiQuixote
Fri Sep 03, 2004 12:57 am
#25
Aroma wrote:Whats wrong with this statement when referring to anyone who works at SOE?
Well, they would have to hire that team.
Who knows, in the conversion process they might end up fixing at lot of the client bugs, not to be confused with most of the game bugs that reside in the server side code.
Page 2 of 2