Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Adam Buckland wrote: > Valve aren't trying to move in on the existing market. > They're trying to create one. > Exactly! Probably they didn't do it when Valve first came out with the Intels because they were busy with other things and the Intel Mac adoption rate wasn't high enough. -- Jorge "Vino" Rodriguez ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
And it was about time! This move should have been done when intel decided to go with mac. Envoyé de mon BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Harry Jeffery Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:51:58 To: Discussion of Half-Life Programming Subject: Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac It also re-asserts Steams position as the best digital distribution system available. Stopping other new platforms such as impulse that support mac from taking control is a wise move. On 11 March 2010 19:08, Kerry Dorsey wrote: > Adam, you're absolutely right...as I see it. This is much less about platform > game support than it is about platform distribution support. But the latter > is useless without the former. You accurately described the Mac dev > food-chain so I won't be redundant, but the other key aspect of current ports > to the Mac involves the code itself...native versus virtualization. The > latest Sims 3 port for Mac is emulated. It's PC code thrown on top of a > resource hungry virt environment (that's an over simplification, so don't get > too upset) that runs horribly on all but the latest and strongest machines. > So while some see "support for the Mac" means that it will run on all Macs, > that ain't so. In fact, I'm venturing a guess that EA's support costs for the > average Mac release is INSANE, all because of performance issues. If said > code were native, most of the problems probably wouldn't exist. So I see > Valve's decision to port, natively, their OB engine product to the Mac to be > an effort to a.) throw more sand in Activision's distribution eyes, (go > Steam!!) , develop a previously untapped market segment (Mac), and head off > support nightmares with a little preventative research and development. > > It shows how Valve's business model and management have matured in a very > short time. Good job! > > -Kerry > > > On 3/11/10 10:43 AM, "Adam Buckland" wrote: > > My $0.02: > > I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Valve only ported > the games because they had to. The real motive here is Steam. > > Selling Mac software is very different to selling PC software. For PC > games, it makes perfect sense to put a boxed copy on a shelf where > people can go to a shop and buy it. > For the Mac, however, their users are much more spread out, and > therefore putting a boxed copy on a shelf isn't such a good idea. Most > Mac software houses realised this a long time ago and sell their > software via digital distribution instead. Most don't even make boxed > copies. Mac games however have never quite got there and still sell > mainly boxed copies. > > The current state of Mac ports of games (with a few exceptions) is > that a developer will develop a game for Windows, release it, and then > pass their code to a third-party developer (Aspyr is an example), who > will then port the game to OS X and sell it. The problem here is that > it can take a team such as the one at Aspyr a year to port a game to > OS X, by which time the game's hype is almost non-existant, and > because the porter, the original developer, and the publisher all need > to make a profit, the game is sold at full-price, while the prices of > the other platforms is significantly reduced, making the OS X port > very unattractive. > > While it make take a third-party porting company a year to port the > game to another platform, the original developer could port the game > much faster and for a much lower cost, especially if the Mac is a > release platform. Problem is, they don't bother because they don't > want to have to deal with trying desperately to distribute it > digitally themselves. > > Valve have spotted an opportunity here. What they're doing is they're > bringing a digital distribution platform that is mature and one that > many developers already have experience using to the Mac. By doing > this, they will (hopefully) entice many other developers to move their > games to the Mac themselves because a distribution method that still > gives them a higher-than-normal (compared to boxed copies) profit > margin is available. > > So, why have Valve moved their games to OS X and not just Steam? > Well, there's a number of reasons > 1) They need something to launch Steam on the Mac with!! > 2) If they didn't, other developers would have no reason to have any > confidence in Steam for Mac. > 3) Valve now have some valuable knowledge and experience in porting to > OS X that they can use to help other developers in porting their games > to OS X. This is useful because while Valve are giving away techniques > that they've spent considerable money trying to develop, more Mac > games on Steam = more profit! > > So, to sum up, the people who are looking at existing market figures > shouldn't be. Valve aren't trying to move in on the existing market. > They're trying to create one. > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the
Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
It also re-asserts Steams position as the best digital distribution system available. Stopping other new platforms such as impulse that support mac from taking control is a wise move. On 11 March 2010 19:08, Kerry Dorsey wrote: > Adam, you're absolutely right...as I see it. This is much less about platform > game support than it is about platform distribution support. But the latter > is useless without the former. You accurately described the Mac dev > food-chain so I won't be redundant, but the other key aspect of current ports > to the Mac involves the code itself...native versus virtualization. The > latest Sims 3 port for Mac is emulated. It's PC code thrown on top of a > resource hungry virt environment (that's an over simplification, so don't get > too upset) that runs horribly on all but the latest and strongest machines. > So while some see "support for the Mac" means that it will run on all Macs, > that ain't so. In fact, I'm venturing a guess that EA's support costs for the > average Mac release is INSANE, all because of performance issues. If said > code were native, most of the problems probably wouldn't exist. So I see > Valve's decision to port, natively, their OB engine product to the Mac to be > an effort to a.) throw more sand in Activision's distribution eyes, (go > Steam!!) , develop a previously untapped market segment (Mac), and head off > support nightmares with a little preventative research and development. > > It shows how Valve's business model and management have matured in a very > short time. Good job! > > -Kerry > > > On 3/11/10 10:43 AM, "Adam Buckland" wrote: > > My $0.02: > > I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Valve only ported > the games because they had to. The real motive here is Steam. > > Selling Mac software is very different to selling PC software. For PC > games, it makes perfect sense to put a boxed copy on a shelf where > people can go to a shop and buy it. > For the Mac, however, their users are much more spread out, and > therefore putting a boxed copy on a shelf isn't such a good idea. Most > Mac software houses realised this a long time ago and sell their > software via digital distribution instead. Most don't even make boxed > copies. Mac games however have never quite got there and still sell > mainly boxed copies. > > The current state of Mac ports of games (with a few exceptions) is > that a developer will develop a game for Windows, release it, and then > pass their code to a third-party developer (Aspyr is an example), who > will then port the game to OS X and sell it. The problem here is that > it can take a team such as the one at Aspyr a year to port a game to > OS X, by which time the game's hype is almost non-existant, and > because the porter, the original developer, and the publisher all need > to make a profit, the game is sold at full-price, while the prices of > the other platforms is significantly reduced, making the OS X port > very unattractive. > > While it make take a third-party porting company a year to port the > game to another platform, the original developer could port the game > much faster and for a much lower cost, especially if the Mac is a > release platform. Problem is, they don't bother because they don't > want to have to deal with trying desperately to distribute it > digitally themselves. > > Valve have spotted an opportunity here. What they're doing is they're > bringing a digital distribution platform that is mature and one that > many developers already have experience using to the Mac. By doing > this, they will (hopefully) entice many other developers to move their > games to the Mac themselves because a distribution method that still > gives them a higher-than-normal (compared to boxed copies) profit > margin is available. > > So, why have Valve moved their games to OS X and not just Steam? > Well, there's a number of reasons > 1) They need something to launch Steam on the Mac with!! > 2) If they didn't, other developers would have no reason to have any > confidence in Steam for Mac. > 3) Valve now have some valuable knowledge and experience in porting to > OS X that they can use to help other developers in porting their games > to OS X. This is useful because while Valve are giving away techniques > that they've spent considerable money trying to develop, more Mac > games on Steam = more profit! > > So, to sum up, the people who are looking at existing market figures > shouldn't be. Valve aren't trying to move in on the existing market. > They're trying to create one. > > ___ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders > > ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
Adam, you're absolutely right...as I see it. This is much less about platform game support than it is about platform distribution support. But the latter is useless without the former. You accurately described the Mac dev food-chain so I won't be redundant, but the other key aspect of current ports to the Mac involves the code itself...native versus virtualization. The latest Sims 3 port for Mac is emulated. It's PC code thrown on top of a resource hungry virt environment (that's an over simplification, so don't get too upset) that runs horribly on all but the latest and strongest machines. So while some see "support for the Mac" means that it will run on all Macs, that ain't so. In fact, I'm venturing a guess that EA's support costs for the average Mac release is INSANE, all because of performance issues. If said code were native, most of the problems probably wouldn't exist. So I see Valve's decision to port, natively, their OB engine product to the Mac to be an effort to a.) throw more sand in Activision's distribution eyes, (go Steam!!) , develop a previously untapped market segment (Mac), and head off support nightmares with a little preventative research and development. It shows how Valve's business model and management have matured in a very short time. Good job! -Kerry On 3/11/10 10:43 AM, "Adam Buckland" wrote: My $0.02: I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Valve only ported the games because they had to. The real motive here is Steam. Selling Mac software is very different to selling PC software. For PC games, it makes perfect sense to put a boxed copy on a shelf where people can go to a shop and buy it. For the Mac, however, their users are much more spread out, and therefore putting a boxed copy on a shelf isn't such a good idea. Most Mac software houses realised this a long time ago and sell their software via digital distribution instead. Most don't even make boxed copies. Mac games however have never quite got there and still sell mainly boxed copies. The current state of Mac ports of games (with a few exceptions) is that a developer will develop a game for Windows, release it, and then pass their code to a third-party developer (Aspyr is an example), who will then port the game to OS X and sell it. The problem here is that it can take a team such as the one at Aspyr a year to port a game to OS X, by which time the game's hype is almost non-existant, and because the porter, the original developer, and the publisher all need to make a profit, the game is sold at full-price, while the prices of the other platforms is significantly reduced, making the OS X port very unattractive. While it make take a third-party porting company a year to port the game to another platform, the original developer could port the game much faster and for a much lower cost, especially if the Mac is a release platform. Problem is, they don't bother because they don't want to have to deal with trying desperately to distribute it digitally themselves. Valve have spotted an opportunity here. What they're doing is they're bringing a digital distribution platform that is mature and one that many developers already have experience using to the Mac. By doing this, they will (hopefully) entice many other developers to move their games to the Mac themselves because a distribution method that still gives them a higher-than-normal (compared to boxed copies) profit margin is available. So, why have Valve moved their games to OS X and not just Steam? Well, there's a number of reasons 1) They need something to launch Steam on the Mac with!! 2) If they didn't, other developers would have no reason to have any confidence in Steam for Mac. 3) Valve now have some valuable knowledge and experience in porting to OS X that they can use to help other developers in porting their games to OS X. This is useful because while Valve are giving away techniques that they've spent considerable money trying to develop, more Mac games on Steam = more profit! So, to sum up, the people who are looking at existing market figures shouldn't be. Valve aren't trying to move in on the existing market. They're trying to create one. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
My $0.02: I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Valve only ported the games because they had to. The real motive here is Steam. Selling Mac software is very different to selling PC software. For PC games, it makes perfect sense to put a boxed copy on a shelf where people can go to a shop and buy it. For the Mac, however, their users are much more spread out, and therefore putting a boxed copy on a shelf isn't such a good idea. Most Mac software houses realised this a long time ago and sell their software via digital distribution instead. Most don't even make boxed copies. Mac games however have never quite got there and still sell mainly boxed copies. The current state of Mac ports of games (with a few exceptions) is that a developer will develop a game for Windows, release it, and then pass their code to a third-party developer (Aspyr is an example), who will then port the game to OS X and sell it. The problem here is that it can take a team such as the one at Aspyr a year to port a game to OS X, by which time the game's hype is almost non-existant, and because the porter, the original developer, and the publisher all need to make a profit, the game is sold at full-price, while the prices of the other platforms is significantly reduced, making the OS X port very unattractive. While it make take a third-party porting company a year to port the game to another platform, the original developer could port the game much faster and for a much lower cost, especially if the Mac is a release platform. Problem is, they don't bother because they don't want to have to deal with trying desperately to distribute it digitally themselves. Valve have spotted an opportunity here. What they're doing is they're bringing a digital distribution platform that is mature and one that many developers already have experience using to the Mac. By doing this, they will (hopefully) entice many other developers to move their games to the Mac themselves because a distribution method that still gives them a higher-than-normal (compared to boxed copies) profit margin is available. So, why have Valve moved their games to OS X and not just Steam? Well, there's a number of reasons 1) They need something to launch Steam on the Mac with!! 2) If they didn't, other developers would have no reason to have any confidence in Steam for Mac. 3) Valve now have some valuable knowledge and experience in porting to OS X that they can use to help other developers in porting their games to OS X. This is useful because while Valve are giving away techniques that they've spent considerable money trying to develop, more Mac games on Steam = more profit! So, to sum up, the people who are looking at existing market figures shouldn't be. Valve aren't trying to move in on the existing market. They're trying to create one. On 11 March 2010 14:38, Jeffrey "botman" Broome wrote: > I'm not so sure that a Mac port makes sense financially. According to > NPD (October 2009)... > > http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_091005.html > > 12% of U.S. households owning a computer, own an Apple computer. Lets > assume all of those are Macs with OSX and not Apple IIs. :) > > Of those Apple users, 85% *also* own a Windows PC. This means that many > of those Mac customers who wanted to buy Portal or Half-Life2 or Left 4 > Dead probably already own it, which means that you aren't going to have > much of an increase in sales by supporting OSX. Any customers that > bought it on PC who instead buy it on OSX just reduce the total sales > numbers for the PC (because they are buying it for a different platform > now). > > I really like the Mac and OSX. I've done some iPhone development on the > Mac... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4HZT-gKDVU > > ...so I'm not an "Apple hater" or "Mac hater". I think OSX is really > neat. It is *very* user friendly and has a lot of really nice features > (which Windows Vista and Windows 7 clearly "borrowed" from), but I just > don't see supporting OSX as making much sense financially. > > Here's the way I think things went down... > > About 6 or 8 months ago, Gabe was looking to buy a new computer. Gabe > is a Microsoft guy from *way* back, and had never really messed around > much with Macs, but this time he decided to get a Mac running Snow > Leopard. After a few minutes of playing around with it, Gabe goes > running down the hall to grab people and tell them how AWESOME the Mac > was!!! Gabe said "OMG! We HAVE to port our games to this > platform!!1!11!". Some people replied and said "But Gabe, we're not > going to be able to make any money selling games on Macs and it's going > to cost us money to port our engine and all of our old games to OSX." > Gabe said "I don't care. We make enough money from Left 4 Dead, > Counter-Strike and revenue from all the Steam sales to cover it. I want > to see some of our games running on a Mac within a year." So a small > team was formed to look into what it would take t
Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
Jeffrey, I think what Valve is hoping to do is grow the Mac market with Steam and at the same time take control as the dominant force in that market. While there are a lot of households that have Macs and PC's, I think the data may be betraying you. How many of those dual-computer households are ones in which the family has a PC but the kid has a Mac of his own? Why else would a family have two computers? There are plenty of Mac people who dual boot to Windows in order to play video games (like, every college student I know,) and I think that if Valve plays their cards right, they could actually help grow the Mac market, as lack of games is the Mac's single biggest drawback, in my opinion. (Hell I might own a Mac if it weren't for lack of games.) Games are going to come to Macs eventually and Valve is trying to control the market when that happens. It has a good chance of working. -- Jorge "Vino" Rodriguez ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
Jeffrey "botman" Broome wrote: > I'm not so sure that a Mac port makes sense financially. According to NPD > (October 2009)... > The indie game Overgrowth (sequel to Lugaru) supports Windows, Mac, and Linux. While most of thier points to do so don't apply to a large game studio like Valve, some do, and I am fairly sure Valve has a few reasons of their own. I highly suggest indie programmers read this: http://blog.wolfire.com/2008/12/why-you-should-support-mac-os-x-and-linux/ Plus, a proper port is a one-time-task, and then if you design all new features with cross-platformness in mind, your games would be a cross platform for a long time. Of course, crossplatformness is expensive, but lets be honest, Valve couldn't be richer and they are known for their very very successful high-risk projects. I think Valve wants Steam to be >the< platform for game distribution in the future, so they have to go crossplatform to make sure this happens. ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
Re: [hlcoders] Steam 2010 mod support and Source for the Mac
I'm not so sure that a Mac port makes sense financially. According to NPD (October 2009)... http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_091005.html 12% of U.S. households owning a computer, own an Apple computer. Lets assume all of those are Macs with OSX and not Apple IIs. :) Of those Apple users, 85% *also* own a Windows PC. This means that many of those Mac customers who wanted to buy Portal or Half-Life2 or Left 4 Dead probably already own it, which means that you aren't going to have much of an increase in sales by supporting OSX. Any customers that bought it on PC who instead buy it on OSX just reduce the total sales numbers for the PC (because they are buying it for a different platform now). I really like the Mac and OSX. I've done some iPhone development on the Mac... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4HZT-gKDVU ...so I'm not an "Apple hater" or "Mac hater". I think OSX is really neat. It is *very* user friendly and has a lot of really nice features (which Windows Vista and Windows 7 clearly "borrowed" from), but I just don't see supporting OSX as making much sense financially. Here's the way I think things went down... About 6 or 8 months ago, Gabe was looking to buy a new computer. Gabe is a Microsoft guy from *way* back, and had never really messed around much with Macs, but this time he decided to get a Mac running Snow Leopard. After a few minutes of playing around with it, Gabe goes running down the hall to grab people and tell them how AWESOME the Mac was!!! Gabe said "OMG! We HAVE to port our games to this platform!!1!11!". Some people replied and said "But Gabe, we're not going to be able to make any money selling games on Macs and it's going to cost us money to port our engine and all of our old games to OSX." Gabe said "I don't care. We make enough money from Left 4 Dead, Counter-Strike and revenue from all the Steam sales to cover it. I want to see some of our games running on a Mac within a year." So a small team was formed to look into what it would take to port all of the engine DirectX and shader stuff to OpenGL and get the engine game code ported to OSX. Gabe decided they should pick something smaller that would appear more to "Think Different" type people and everyone agreed that Portal was the one game that would most appeal to Mac-types. As I said above, I like OSX, but Valve's decision to support Macs still has me scratching my head. Maybe Valve is doing this "out of the goodness of their hearts", or maybe Valve sees it as more of a public relations benefit. It still doesn't seem like a money making venture to me. Maybe it will encourage other engine and game developers (I'm looking at you Epic) to support OSX, but I doubt it. On 3/10/2010 4:49 PM, Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen wrote: > Well, Mac support makes a lot of sense really. According to wikipedia > Windows covers 88% of all desktop computers, and Mac OS X 6%. GNU/Linux > only is only 1%. If you look at this pie chart > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operating_system_usage_share.svg you > can clearly see that if Valve supports Windows and Mac, they support > almost every desktop computer able to run their games. I am really glad > Valve are expanding the market for digital distribution to other > platforms as well - personally I see Steam-like systems as the future of > gaming. So whether how much I would like a linux port, I can perfectly > see why they should focus on a Mac OS X port first. > > As for the whole no gaming on GNU/Linux thingey - the main reason > developers don't make games for the platform is because gamers don't use > it, and the main reason gamers doesn't use the platform is because the > huge games don't get ports for the platform. If Valve shipped their > Source games for GNU/Linux-based operating systems I am sure it would > cause more gamers to use the platform, including myself. > > Again, I am really glad Valve is doing a Mac OS X port of Steam and > Source and I appreiciate their efforts put into this. > > ___ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
