Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Yeah... Kinda | |
| Posted By: Mr. Zarquon <chrisb@sneezingdog.com> | Date: 4/17/02 11:56 a.m. |
In Response To: Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh! (Miguel Chavez) : Saw this article linked from Macminute.com, : http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=4522 :
: WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Mac-gaming enters new era : By Jonny Evans : UK technology firm Coderus has announced its innovative games-development
: MacDX could usher-in a new wave of Mac software-development – it brings
While I am glad that this means Halo being ported to Mac won't take as long, and there will not be such a delay between mac and PC releases, I am not to hesitant to embrace it fully. I mean, now it means that MS can get more people to write in directX, and if they decide so, flip off everyone else, change the standard, and make it illegal to port directx to a non Windows system. But if MS wanted to stay on top, they would they allow this to happen in the first place? MS wants DirectX to be THE gaming API set, that is the purpose of the XBox IMHO. To make it more and more desirable to game programmers to use directx. The problem is, microsoft's purpose is to stay alive and make money. In the short term, getting every OS able to run direct X games may weaken their sales for a bit, but it increases the installed base of Gaming companies that are comfortable with and now dependent on DirectX. They have too much money invested in DirectX programming to not Jump when MS says Jump. So they get suckered in, buy in, thinking this is an sweet deal, and then blam! The fastest / newest / spiffiest features that they want to implement, that their customers are demanding, they only know how to do so in DirectX. And DirectX version 12, which for some reason, has yet to be ported to MacOS, which has yet to be ported to Linux, etc. So by being cutting edge, they have gotten themselves entirely dependent on MS. Now this sounds like our favorite game company, and I wouldn't be suprised if there are some struggles going on with the Boy (Bill G) and his plan for world domination. I don't think MS ever paid close attention to what was on the back of the Ling Ling's head shirt. Bungie Kicks ass, I just worry at times if it isn't going to become one of MS's little tools to be thrown aside once it serves their purpose. But yeah! I can play more games... I'll just have to deal with the bittersweat taste in my mouth when I do so. And I am more than certain that Bungie had nothing to do with a delay in the desktop port of halo. I am sure the suits hadn't anticipated Bungie having the support that it does, and I mean, this IS M$ we are talking about. Working with Bungie was foreign to them, because Bungie has a Spine (probably titanium refinforced with plasma shielding at that) and I am sure they aren't used to running into those all the time (look at how they act, after being found guilty of being a monopoly). w00t. Best part of waking up is philosophising in your boxers. Mr. Zarquon
| |
|
| Replies: |
| Big News!! - DirectX for Macintosh! | Miguel Chavez | 4/17/02 11:19 a.m. |
| Yeah... Kinda | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 11:56 a.m. |
| Geez... why the negative spin? | ferrex | 4/17/02 1:03 p.m. |
| Because, I am. | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 1:10 p.m. |
| Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | Kanen Faud'r | 4/17/02 1:26 p.m. |
| Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/17/02 2:32 p.m. |
| Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | Mark Levin | 4/17/02 3:07 p.m. |
| Carmack... | Miguel Chavez | 4/17/02 3:22 p.m. |
| Re: Carmack... | ferrex | 4/17/02 7:08 p.m. |
| Re: Carmack... | Mr. Zarquon | 4/17/02 9:31 p.m. |
| Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/17/02 3:45 p.m. |
| Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | ferrex | 4/17/02 7:02 p.m. |
| Re: Geez... why the negative spin? | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 9:57 a.m. |
| Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG | protexts | 4/18/02 4:46 a.m. |
| Re: Why PCDestroyer is a mental midget LONGGGGGG | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 10:11 a.m. |
| Re: Why PCDestroyer is off | protexts | 4/18/02 2:11 p.m. |
| Make a 1AC! | 123456789 | 4/19/02 11:47 a.m. |
| Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | kiro69 | 4/18/02 11:19 a.m. |
| Re: Speak for yourself there, parnter... | Lophan | 4/18/02 12:09 p.m. |
| Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | protexts | 4/18/02 2:30 p.m. |
| Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:37 p.m. |
| The place where your whole argument falls down... | Louis Wu | 4/18/02 4:54 p.m. |
| Re: The place where your whole argument falls down | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 5:04 p.m. |
| Ack. | Louis Wu | 4/18/02 5:16 p.m. |
| Re: Ack. | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 5:45 p.m. |
| Re: Ack. | protexts | 4/18/02 9:34 p.m. |
| Re: Ack. | kiro69 | 4/19/02 10:36 a.m. |
| Re: Ack. | Louis Wu | 4/19/02 10:54 a.m. |
| Re: Ack. | protexts | 4/19/02 10:01 p.m. |
| As I said before, I agree. | 123456789 | 4/19/02 5:36 p.m. |
| Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | protexts | 4/19/02 5:38 a.m. |
| Re: Why PCDestroyer is NOT a mental midget | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:26 p.m. |
| awesome reply, pcd *NM* | kiro69 | 4/18/02 10:43 a.m. |
| Re: Quick note... | Lophan | 4/18/02 12:38 p.m. |
| Re: Quick note... | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:40 p.m. |
| Re: Quick note... | Warbow | 4/18/02 4:42 p.m. |
| Re: Quick note... | PCDestroyer | 4/18/02 4:57 p.m. |
| Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | Lophan | 4/19/02 12:24 a.m. |
| Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | PCDestroyer | 4/19/02 10:24 a.m. |
| Re: Let's look at this a little closer... | vector40 | 4/19/02 9:03 p.m. |
| Re: Then again, theoretically... | Lophan | 4/20/02 12:13 a.m. |
| Re: Then again, theoretically... | vector40 | 4/20/02 1:12 a.m. |
| Re: Then again, theoretically... | PCDestroyer | 4/21/02 6:27 p.m. |
| Re: Then again, theoretically... | protexts | 4/20/02 5:15 a.m. |
| Re: Then again, theoretically... | vector40 | 4/20/02 4:09 p.m. |
| Re: Then again, theoretically... | PCDestroyer | 4/21/02 6:24 p.m. |
| Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:24 a.m. |
| Re: Implementation and Stealing | Aida-kun | 4/22/02 5:15 a.m. |
| Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:56 a.m. |
| Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 2:45 p.m. |
| Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 9:49 a.m. |
| Re: Implementation and Stealing | protexts | 4/22/02 3:05 p.m. |
| Re: Implementation and Stealing | PCDestroyer | 4/22/02 8:34 p.m. |
| Re: Implementation and Stealing | kiro69 | 4/23/02 10:35 a.m. |
| I agree | 123456789 | 4/17/02 3:19 p.m. |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |