Curse

Alicendre · Oct 31, 2007, 04:40 PM // 16:40

My Starcraft box has only an "cd-rom PC/Windows 95" mention on it, so I suppose there are two versions of it.

iridescentfyre · Oct 31, 2007, 04:40 PM // 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by blakecraw

In short, if companies use opengl rather than directx, this is hardly an issue.

Again that comes back to what I brought up: OpenGL doesn't allow what DirectX does. If companies without Blizzard's name recognition and following want to compete with the latest games utilizing the latest DirectX rendering techniques, OpenGL isn't going to cut it.

Josh · Oct 31, 2007, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by chingsinkly

All Blizzard games now are compatible on macs, if it takes WAY more resources and Blizz is willing to spend them, i can guarantee they aren't losing anything by making their games mac compatible. Basically, Blizzard > Anet and Mac > Pc. You can close the thread now.

*Is hit with a hurricane of fanboyism*

Damn.

Well, for starters.. World of Shitcraft is made in OpenGL, so barely any resources are spent in making it ported to Mac, as it's already semi-compatible anyway. It's not programmed and developed with DirectX like Guild Wars is. That's why it looks so crap and cartoony (WoW)... DirectX is so much more eye-candy capable, and optimizable compared to OpenGL, way too many features that blow your mind away visually.

Blizzard earn a huge monthly revenue, ArenaNet don't. ANet was made by ex-Blizzard employees, and quite frankly. With minimum advertising, there doing amazingly well - even with no monthly fees.

lordpwn · Oct 31, 2007, 09:21 PM // 21:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh

Well, for starters.. World of Shitcraft is made in OpenGL, so barely any resources are spent in making it ported to Mac, as it's already semi-compatible anyway. It's not programmed and developed with DirectX like Guild Wars is. That's why it looks so crap and cartoony (WoW)... DirectX is so much more eye-candy capable, and optimizable compared to OpenGL, way too many features that blow your mind away visually.

Have you ever programmed anything for either Direct3D or OpenGL? Because you sure as hell don't sound like you have.

I've dealt with both, and I can say OpenGL 2.0 (or OpenGL 1.3 with some extensions) is more than capable of producing the kind of graphics you can see in GW at good framerates (given a decent video card), and should be able to do anything that DX10 can once the ARB gets the right extensions done (could take a while, though - they're probably a little busy with the OGL 3.0 spec).

Josh · Oct 31, 2007, 09:28 PM // 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordpwn

Have you ever programmed anything for either Direct3D or OpenGL? Because you sure as hell don't sound like you have.

I've dealt with both, and I can say OpenGL 2.0 (or OpenGL 1.3 with some extensions) is more than capable of producing the kind of graphics you can see in GW at good framerates (given a decent video card), and should be able to do anything that DX10 can once the ARB gets the right extensions done (could take a while, though - they're probably a little busy with the OGL 3.0 spec).

And in what time length? DirectX is much easier to work with than OpenGL.

But tell me this, if it IS so easy to work with and it's just as good as DirectX - Then why isn't anyone programming for it apart from Blizzard, knowing they could get the odd few percentage more of sales from Mac users..?

lordpwn · Oct 31, 2007, 10:15 PM // 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh

But tell me this, if it IS so easy to work with and it's just as good as DirectX - Then why isn't anyone programming for it apart from Blizzard, knowing they could get the odd few percentage more of sales from Mac users..?

I didn't say anything about either API's ease of use.

Direct3D is slightly easier in some ways: it integrates with other parts of Windows which devs are likely to be familiar with, and has been completely reinvented by Microsoft a few times by now so it's pretty refined at this point. The first few versions of Direct3D were so incredibly bad most devs refused to use them, writing open letters to Microsoft to get them to abandon the project. Obviously they did not - if they had switched to OpenGL they would have killed off one of the things keeping Windows afloat.

Because of DirectX's importance to Microsoft's the company's very keen to work with the hardware makers and game devs to make sure Direct3D supports all the latest features, too. I'd say it's that and the overwhelming popularity of Windows that keeps programmers using Direct3D, even if the concept of a high-level graphics API tied to a single platform sounds like an oxymoron to most programmers.

zamial · Nov 01, 2007, 12:42 AM // 00:42

Macs are the left handed, retarded cousin of the computer world. The only reason to buy 1 is that your school said too and you believed them.Or your guidance counselor talked you into graphic design.

The reason that macs don't get viruses as often as pc is that the creators of viruses want to target as many computers as possible, seems like the same logic as a game manufacturer.

Wouldn't a better question be:
If guidance counselors knew anything about carrier moves, why did they end up as guidance counselors?

Dean Harper · Nov 01, 2007, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

Macs are the left handed, retarded cousin of the computer world. The only reason to buy 1 is that your school said too and you believed them.Or your guidance counselor talked you into graphic design.

The reason that macs don't get viruses as often as pc is that the creators of viruses want to target as many computers as possible, seems like the same logic as a game manufacturer.

Wouldn't a better question be:
If guidance counselors knew anything about carrier moves, why did they end up as guidance counselors?

Sure, there are less Mac users out there than Windows, but to say that they are only used for graphic design is nonsense. A lot of businesses nowadays are switching to Mac because of the new open file sharing system in which you can look as someone elses computer while iChatting with them, and make changes to their files, making their lives a whole lot easier. Macs are meant for the common person who really doesnt want to take all of their free time learning how to use a Windows computer. Windows is for those "techy" guys out there who would rather have something thats hard to use so they can say they can use it than something thats easy to use and better looking. Kinda weird huh?

isamu kurosawa · Nov 01, 2007, 11:17 PM // 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

Macs are the left handed, retarded cousin of the computer world. The only reason to buy 1 is that your school said too and you believed them.Or your guidance counselor talked you into graphic design.

I am both left handed and a graphic designer. Care to insult me some more?

Woop Shotty · Nov 02, 2007, 03:56 AM // 03:56

So am I. Left handed, designer, works with Mac. Guess you don't think much of me then.. I must be as retarded as they get..

Cataclysm · Nov 02, 2007, 04:20 AM // 04:20

In before RED ENGINE GOstorm...

Oh, wait...

wetsparks · Nov 02, 2007, 05:59 AM // 05:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alicendre

Fixed.
Blizzard is one of the richest game companies, Anet is not, thus making this processus alot easier for the first one.

Furthermore, I believe Anet has something more important than remaking their first game when its sequel is in development.

Rich enough to work on Starcraft: Ghost for five(?) years, and hire an outside company to help and then decide to suspend it until a later date.

roflcopter2445 · Nov 02, 2007, 02:41 PM // 14:41

I've seen something about emulating XP on a Mac before, can't remember what it was called. If I find it again, I'll post it here.

Dean Harper · Nov 02, 2007, 09:42 PM // 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by roflcopter2445

I've seen something about emulating XP on a Mac before, can't remember what it was called. If I find it again, I'll post it here.

if you mean by emulating, that it can run windows, its called Bootcamp.

moriz · Nov 02, 2007, 10:24 PM // 22:24

the potential profits gained by allowing macs to play GW is lower than the money needed to code GW using openGL than direct3D. that's basically it. not to mention, direct3D is easier to run on lower end machines than openGL, which allows more low end windows machines to play it. add it up and you'll know why GW was programmed in direct3D instead of openGL.

Dean Harper · Nov 02, 2007, 10:55 PM // 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the potential profits gained by allowing macs to play GW is lower than the money needed to code GW using openGL than direct3D. that's basically it. not to mention, direct3D is easier to run on lower end machines than openGL, which allows more low end windows machines to play it. add it up and you'll know why GW was programmed in direct3D instead of openGL.

k, if the mods could close this thread, id be really happy, thanks!

Btw, thnks for the straightforward answer moriz

Haskell · Nov 05, 2007, 09:27 PM // 21:27

This thread has one of the highest density of idiocy I have ever seen.

moriz · Nov 05, 2007, 09:36 PM // 21:36

it has doubled after you posted.

roflcopter2445 · Nov 05, 2007, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Harper

if you mean by emulating, that it can run windows, its called Bootcamp.

yeah thats it

Haskell · Nov 06, 2007, 12:37 AM // 00:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

not to mention, direct3D is easier to run on lower end machines than openGL, which allows more low end windows machines to play it. add it up and you'll know why GW was programmed in direct3D instead of openGL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

it has doubled after you posted.

Hardly. Sorry if my english is not perfect, but this is a technical forum, right.

Btw, any proof that D3D is "easier to run" than OpenGL? What does it even mean? Also, Direct3D is not a programming language...