Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Sanctum OS X Plans

Coffee Stain Studios announces plans for a OS X edition of Sanctum, saying the Mac edition of their first-person shooter/tower defense game is due on August 13th. The Sanctum website has details on how to apply to beta test this, saying those who own the Windows edition should all be granted access "shortly." Here's word:

Sanctum has taken Steam by storm, winning the community’s vote for last week’s Community Sale. Come August 13th, Mac users will be able to get their hands on the game and experience the awesomeness that is the first FPS/tower-defense hybrid. Those who own Sanctum now will see a separate Beta version in their games list that they can download and test.

12. Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Jul 29, 2012, 16:08 DrEvil
Kitkoan wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 02:57:
DrEvil wrote on Jul 29, 2012, 01:52:
I'd like to see what claims you have to backup "OSX is bloated"; I also fail to see how the "bloat" of an OS in the "traditional sense" would even matter here. As far as "Apple's lackluster hardware", which hardware are you talking about? Certainly not the new MacBook Pro Retina with a GeForce GT650M. Their hardware, in general, is certainly no worse than the mainstream PC market in terms of performance or ability.

As I said, look up other games that are both coded for Windows and OSX. You'll notice that the OSX version needs a more powerful GPU due to OSX's excesses usage of OpenCL for all the "pretty" effects. And your comparing a $3000 laptop to what kind of "mainstream PC market"? Most people aren't paying $3K, so please use a more serious example.

Sorry, but I disagree, again. For example, my (fairly old now) MacBook Pro from 2009 has an nVidia GeForce 9600 GT; yet I'm still able to play things at acceptable framerates such as StarCraft 2, Civilization V, etc.

Does it run as smoothly as my PC w/ a GTX 580? Heck no. But it's playable, and it works well enough.

Could the performance be better? Sure. But that's not what I was arguing about.

I will readily agree that on Windows, most games can run faster. But that wasn't my point. My point was that it's a commercially viable platform.

I'm uncertain why you believe the OS' use of OpenCL/OpenGL is the primary cause of issues here.

Most of the performance issues in OS X can be traced back to the kernel or to Apple's current OpenGL stack. But these are things that continue to get better, and I might add are not preventing the commercial success of games on the platform.

The performance of the system is good enough, although I wish it was better in some areas.

So hold on, first you tell me you don't know why I think OpenGL could be a primary cause here, then you go on to tell me you know that OpenGL has problems which would be a primary cause since it is the API used from graphical games. If it's having issues doing the main part of the program/game then I would say that is one of the primary causes. And back to OpenCL doing too many OSX extras like the animation, etc...

No, you implied that OpenGL was somehow broken or busted on the OS X platform; it's not. Apple has an OpenGL 3.2 implementation that's very reliable, spec-compliant, etc. I never claimed it was the fastest implementation though. I merely claimed it was a good one, in the sense that it works as expected.

You continue to harp about OpenCL being the cause of woe, but I've seen no evidence to support that, either from you, or in my own development work, or from the comments of other developers. This is the the first time I've seen anyone claim that OpenCL is the source of performance issues on OS X for games, etc.

Nowhere did any of us suggest that Apple makes "a good gaming rig"; I agree that they don't. What I am willing to claim though is that their hardware is just as suitable as most mainstream PCs for gaming, and their laptops are certainly just as qualified as the majority of the ones on the market. (Exceptions being "portable workstations" like the ones Alienware/Dell sells.)

Define "their hardware" and now you want to compare I'm guessing that $3000 laptop but don't want to compare it to a $2000-$3000 PC laptop?

You're guessing wrong. You could take any of the desktop or laptop systems Apple currently sells with discrete graphics hardware and they would provide a commercially viable system for mainstream gaming for developers to sell to.

Until Apple actually makes it clear that their intent is to lock their platform down, it's silly to assign to classify their actions here as malignant. Microsoft is making the same moves with Windows 8. Believe it or not, the same moves have also been considered (as far as signed application execution) in the UNIX market space for the last few years now as well with the advent of TPM and "trusted boot" technologies.

Turning it on by default pretty much did show they are slowly moving towards closing OSX. Depending on the backlash will show if they finally do, but my money is that they will. But it's not set in stone nor did I claim it was.

Again, until Apple actually moves in a direction that prohibits open development, I'm not going to run around thinking the sky is falling.

Me: Gatekeeper is now on by default and most basic users won't turn it off because you have to go to the Security settings and turn things off (people will think warning signs about turning any system settings off, more so with a security setting clearly labelled Security).

But by default, there's a documented shortcut key for allowing you to open the app regardless of the security setting. Which I believe can be reached through the '?' read more link on the Gatekeeper popup. I applaud Apple's move here as too many people will just run any random thing they download and instantly click through dialogs. It's almost a given that if you require people to actually read something, they won't, and so most individuals won't bypass gatekeeper.

Because everyone reads every system warning and doesn't just click the box to remove the warning/note. Might I introduce you to the average user? Tip, they don't read things like that. Which means that for basic users it kinda will and they are using this as a judge to move to the next step of locking it down.

Did you read what I wrote? I just pointed out that the default behaviour was desirable, and that most users won't read the text, so won't see how to bypass gatekeeper.

The dialog for gatekeeper doesn't offer any options to disable it; the user has to manually nagivate to system preferences and change the setting in the security panel. Or they have to actually read the text and discover the key shortcut for bypassing it.

Yes, I agree the sandbox model needs more permissive models for certain classes of applications. But on the other hand, Apple's trying to do something no one in the desktop industry has done before, so I think it's going to be a learning process for everyone involved. Apple has already expanded the capabilities of the sandbox model from what they provided originally based on developer feedback.

Based on developer feedback? Thats why they are having such a backlash? Over things that developer feedback agreed with?

Apple did make changes based on developer feedback; did I claim they made *all* the changes developers wanted? No. I simply indicated that they already expanded capabilities based on feedback. That doesn't mean they just did whatever they were asked. As I said before, Apple is trying something no one in the major desktop market has done before; it's going to be a learning experience for all parties.

Me: And what API's are good for making games on OSX? From what I've heard, OpenGL support is pretty bad on OSX and DirectX doesn't work at all. The two main API's used for games don't have much support that I'm aware of. This really hinders development on OSX as you'll need to use Cocoa I think?

First of all, as of OS X 10.7, the OpenGL support is very good. Apple has a very solid implementation of OpenGL 3.2. Yes, I wish they supported greater than 3.2, but they have a holistic approach to what they support on the platform that tends to reflect their minimum supported hardware profile. My guess is that the next release of OS X will provide support for a newer version of OpenGL as OS X Mountain Lion was the first version to officially drop support for all pre-OpenGL 3.3 hardware.

You are aware OpenGL is version 4.1, and many Apple machines physically can support it but Apple isn't bothing to? This is hurting them, old outdated support, and 4.1 was released in Augest last year, so almost a year later they still are showing no interest. They are only just supporting 3.2 with the newer version of OSX, which is from Augest 2009. Explain how this is really good support of OpenGL?

You are aware that Apple has chosen to base their API support based on the range of supported systems instead of based on the hardware in each individual system?

Now consider that development cycles for supported products typically span years. Apple completely reworked their entire OpenGL stack and provided full OpenGL 3.2 support only two years after it was released.

Then consider that there were three versions of OpenGL released in 2010, and one version in 2011. Then remember that Apple is on the OpenGL review board and actively contributes to it. They know more about the roadmap then we do, and I can't blame them for wanting to take a more holistic approach to its implementation rather than just blindly updating as fast as possible.

Finally, consider that Intel's integrated graphics chipsets didn't actually support versions of OpenGL greater than 3.0 until the HD 3000/4000 series. And even then, those only officially support OpenGL 3.3 currently {1}. Apple was only able to support up to OpenGL 3.2 on Intel hardware because they have their own OpenGL stack and their partnership with Intel.

However, Intel is promising they'll deliver OpenGL 4.x support by the end of this year or beginning of next. With that in mind, I expect Apple's next OS update or the one after to support OpenGL 4.x.

As for them not supporting DirectX; WTF? That's a microsoft-only API that's patented, copyrighted, etc. No large corporate entity is going to provide support for that. Most of the mobile and console device space (excluding the Xbox) is OpenGL ES (iPhone, Android, Blackberry, etc.), or OpenGL-based (PS3).

This is why I mentioned OpenGL, since pretty much every game runs a on either DirectX (Windows only) or OpenGL, and as both you and I have shown, Apple isn't really supporting it since they are only just using a 3 year old version of it thats horribly out of date.

DirectX 11 is also three years old; so I'll assume your real point is that OpenGL 3.2 isn't as capable as OpenGL 4. I would argue that's a failure of the old OpenGL ARB and the new Khronos group is fixing that.

OpenGL 3.2 is more than capable enough to produce commercially-viable titles given that most "PC" games these days are written for DirectX 9 capable hardware anyway thanks to most of them just being so-called "console ports".

For example, did you know that Torchlight was written using the OpenGL 2.1 feature set? How about the fact that every game delivered on OS X before OS X Lion was using OpenGL 2.1?

Furthermore, take into account the context of the discussion here. My original response was to someone implying that Linux was somehow the better development platform here. I would point out that if your'e using Intel graphics, or any other 3D graphics hardware that relies on Mesa3D, you're limited to *less* than OpenGL 3.0 support right now in most cases. Only if you used the closed-binary drivers from AMD or nVidia do you get better than that. So again, developers would be stuck writing their games for an OpenGL implementation even older than what Apple provides.

As such, I stand by my implication that OS X is currently a better development platform than Linux. Since you can at least be guaranteed a minimum OpenGL 3.2 support implementation as it's now reasonable to require OS X Lion or greater.

Me: As for the Humble Indie Bundles, OSX users tend to buy a few more copies but not enough to compensate the average price between it and Linux so it doesn't not have a greater revenue collected.

Uh, wrong. If you actually go look at the last humble bundle graph for total revenues, you'd see that the Mac users contributed more revenue in *total* than Linux users. Almost double. While the Windows users of course contribute several times the Mac+Linux users combined.

Go back, look at it again. I did, thats how I know. I didn't write that until I checked to see.
Humble Bundle 2 was a tie. Frozen Byte Bundle Linux out did OSX by about a decent amount. Humble Bundle 3, Linux just out did OSX. Frozen Synapse was a tie. Voxitron OSX just out did Linux by a little. Introversion Bundle Linux out did OSX by a little. Humble Bundle 4 OSX sold a bit more the Linux. Android Bundle Linux did more then double OSX. Mojam OSX just out sold Linux. Android 2 again Linux more then double. Botanicula OSX did about double Linux. Humble Bundle 5 OSX out sold Linux by about 2/3. Not touching the Music Bundle since it is game free. And Linux always pays more. This means Linux out does OSX on average. I own all the Bundles but the first one so I can check.

PS, I was too tired to bother with better quote tag but it is still understandable

So I'll attribute my original erroneous conclusion about "double" on average to be wrong. As for Linux "out does OS X on average" though; that's also wrong. And here's the data to prove my point:

Currently, total Mac payments is ~$300K greater than total Linux payments. And if you look at the last Humble game bundle (The Humble Indie Bundle V), total Mac payments were almost ~$400K greater (or almost double) than the Linux payments.

You can also see from the graphs that on average there are more Mac purchases than Linux purchases. The only category in which Linux purchases really "win" is average platform purchase price. Linux users get far less games than most other platforms, so are willing to pay more money for these bundles.

Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
    Date Subject Author
  1. Jul 28, 15:27 Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Axis
  2. Jul 28, 17:01  Re: Sanctum OS X Plans DrEvil
  4. Jul 28, 20:32   Re: Sanctum OS X Plans killer_roach
  5. Jul 28, 21:48   Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Kitkoan
  6. Jul 29, 01:52    Re: Sanctum OS X Plans DrEvil
  7. Jul 29, 02:57     Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Kitkoan
>> 12. Jul 29, 16:08      Re: Sanctum OS X Plans DrEvil
  3. Jul 28, 17:53 Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Trevellian
  10. Jul 29, 11:46  Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Saboth
  11. Jul 29, 12:36   Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Slashman
  8. Jul 29, 05:36 Re: Sanctum OS X Plans OldTimber
  9. Jul 29, 09:19  Re: Sanctum OS X Plans killer_roach
  14. Jul 30, 05:30  Re: Sanctum OS X Plans Nighthawk
  13. Jul 29, 18:27 removed xornand


Blue's News logo