🚀 go-pugleaf

but with it comes good news.  eidos announced that they're porting both
tomb raiders to mac.  no timetable yet, but it's another step towards
platform parity.

-rob berthold

In article <tmatteo-2904981115530001@150.100.115.20>,
tmatteo@rodalepress.com (Tom Matteo) wrote:

> Bulletin: 
> 
>  Just received news from BlueByte Software, that they will 
> 
> discontinue their Macintosh line of games. Read the PR 
> 
> and http://www2.epix.net/~cdrab/ on the CD-ROM Above Board
> 
> website.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> The Editor

In article
<nospamrabst59+-2904981125550001@pool-207-205-218-72.pbgh.grid.net>,
nospamrabst59+@pitt.edu (rob berthold) wrote:

> but with it comes good news.  eidos announced that they're porting both
> tomb raiders to mac.  no timetable yet, but it's another step towards
> platform parity.

On another note from the Eidos information I just posted to this thread,
let's remember that Core Design said explicitly that no deal has been
signed yet. I don't want to put the Tomb Raider news in a bad light- I'm
very enthusiastic about it- but I think we all need to be realistic about
the vagaries of software development and publishing.

--
Peter Cohen, Editor in Chief                 flargh@tikkabik.com
Tikkabik Mac Game News                   http://www.tikkabik.com
* Mac Game & Edutainment News, Giveaways, Interviews and More! *

In article
<nospamrabst59+-2904981125550001@pool-207-205-218-72.pbgh.grid.net>,
nospamrabst59+@pitt.edu (rob berthold) wrote:

> but with it comes good news.  eidos announced that they're porting both
> tomb raiders to mac.  no timetable yet, but it's another step towards
> platform parity.

No, Eidos did not. In point of fact, Eidos refuted the suggestion that it
was happening. Core Design, the developers of Tomb Raider, have indicated
that TR will come to the Mac. There's a big difference. Eidos is the
publisher, Core is the developer.

--
Peter Cohen, Editor in Chief                 flargh@tikkabik.com
Tikkabik Mac Game News                   http://www.tikkabik.com
* Mac Game & Edutainment News, Giveaways, Interviews and More! *

In article <flargh-2904981635370001@p8.gw1.provi.ma.tiac.com>,
flargh@tikkabik.com (Peter Cohen) wrote:

> In article
> <nospamrabst59+-2904981125550001@pool-207-205-218-72.pbgh.grid.net>,
> nospamrabst59+@pitt.edu (rob berthold) wrote:
> 
> > but with it comes good news.  eidos announced that they're porting both
> > tomb raiders to mac.  no timetable yet, but it's another step towards
> > platform parity.
> 
> No, Eidos did not. In point of fact, Eidos refuted the suggestion that it
> was happening. Core Design, the developers of Tomb Raider, have indicated
> that TR will come to the Mac. There's a big difference. Eidos is the
> publisher, Core is the developer.

Much like SSG is the developer and RedOrb is the publisher. Net result:

No new Warlords for the Mac...

-- 
Of course, wilhelp is Bill Palamer's copyrighted property. 

World Famous Usenet "writer", "my name is wilhelp"
wilhelp@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) demonstrating 
proofreading is not an option in <6i3rh6$2r6@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>

In article <flargh-3004980801010001@p7.gw1.mashp.ma.tiac.com>,
flargh@tikkabik.com (Peter Cohen) wrote:

> In article <6i8t4g$kvl@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
> lousemonkey1@NoSpAm.wilhelp.com (Goin' Nova) wrote:
> 
> > Much like SSG is the developer and RedOrb is the publisher. Net result:
> > 
> > No new Warlords for the Mac...
> 
> Draw what you want from the comparison. It's not exactly accurate. Bottom
> line: TR 1 and 2's developer is very interested in bringing the title to
> MacOS, which counts for a lot.

How would it not be accurate? Both developers have expressed interest in doing
a Mac version(s) of their game(s), go to SSG's web page to see their
"interest". Both
publishers have expressed little interest in doing so. I would imagine the
only reason
"Riven" made it to Macs is because Cyan had more clout than SSG.

What really sucks is that Mac Gamers now have to beg to get their favorite games
ported? Want "xyzzy" ? Send e-mail to the developer/publisher and let 'em
know how
much you want it! What a load of crap.

-- 
Of course, wilhelp is Bill Palamer's copyrighted property. 

World Famous Usenet "writer", "my name is wilhelp"
wilhelp@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) demonstrating 
proofreading is not an option in <6i3rh6$2r6@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>

In article <6ia799$mvt@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
lousemonkey1@NoSpAm.wilhelp.com (Goin' Nova) wrote:

> What really sucks is that Mac Gamers now have to beg to get their
favorite games
> ported? Want "xyzzy" ? Send e-mail to the developer/publisher and let 'em

No, what sucks is that Mac gamers _think_ they have to beg to get any
quality games at all. If even one tenth of the energy that went into
begging for PC scraps was redirected to actively supporting Mac-first or
Mac-only shareware and hobbyist developers, some of these game makers
would have enough revenue to keep themselves in business.

The longer we delude ourselves into thinking we have to have every AAA
list PC title, the shorter the life expectancy of the MacOS as an
entertainment platform can be expected.

--
Peter Cohen, Editor in Chief                 flargh@tikkabik.com
Tikkabik Mac Game News                   http://www.tikkabik.com
* Mac Game & Edutainment News, Giveaways, Interviews and More! *

In article <flargh-3004981535150001@p6.gw1.provi.ma.tiac.com>,
flargh@tikkabik.com (Peter Cohen) wrote:

>No, what sucks is that Mac gamers _think_ they have to beg to get any
>quality games at all. If even one tenth of the energy that went into
>begging for PC scraps was redirected to actively supporting Mac-first or
>Mac-only shareware and hobbyist developers, some of these game makers
>would have enough revenue to keep themselves in business.

If that's how people are thinking (ie beg to get _any_ quality games) then
I'll certainly agree it sucks. Badly.

God knows there are a number of extremely high quality Mac games around at
the moment. (Am I the only one over 6 years old who plays Pop!
incidentally? ;) )

Maybe Apple could do some kind of deal with the smaller companies to push
the games a little. 

But it's still nice to have the choice, so asking for other options isn't
necessarily a bad thing...

--
Martin Cox <mcox@ihug.co.nz>
The (Incomplete) VirtualPC User's Guide    <http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~mcox/vpc/>

In article <mcox-ya02408000R0105981828590001@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
mcox@ihug.co.nz (Martin Cox) wrote:

> In article <flargh-3004981535150001@p6.gw1.provi.ma.tiac.com>,
> flargh@tikkabik.com (Peter Cohen) wrote:
> 
> >No, what sucks is that Mac gamers _think_ they have to beg to get any
> >quality games at all. If even one tenth of the energy that went into
> >begging for PC scraps was redirected to actively supporting Mac-first or
> >Mac-only shareware and hobbyist developers, some of these game makers
> >would have enough revenue to keep themselves in business.
> 
> If that's how people are thinking (ie beg to get _any_ quality games) then
> I'll certainly agree it sucks. Badly.
> 
> God knows there are a number of extremely high quality Mac games around at
> the moment. (Am I the only one over 6 years old who plays Pop!
> incidentally? ;) )
> 
> Maybe Apple could do some kind of deal with the smaller companies to push
> the games a little. 
> 

Well, jacking with the developer support plans is a good start....

-- 
Of course, wilhelp is Bill Palamer's copyrighted property. 

World Famous Usenet "writer", "my name is wilhelp"
wilhelp@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer) demonstrating 
proofreading is not an option in <6i3rh6$2r6@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>

In article
<nospamrabst59+-2904981125550001@pool-207-205-218-72.pbgh.grid.net>,
nospamrabst59+@pitt.edu (rob berthold) wrote:

>>but with it comes good news.  eidos announced that they're porting both
>>tomb raiders to mac.  no timetable yet, but it's another step towards
>>platform parity.
>>
>>-rob berthold

Yeah, and Westlake's doing the Falcon 4.0 port.
Things are lookin' up.

-el

-- 
Diplomacy: the fine art of saying "nice doggie" while you're looking for a rock.
"You further a terrible reputation for Macintosh loyalists everywhere."
- Tom Vilot  (tjv at indra dot com) 

In article <flargh-3004981535150001@p6.gw1.provi.ma.tiac.com>,
flargh@tikkabik.com (Peter Cohen) wrote:

> In article <6ia799$mvt@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
> lousemonkey1@NoSpAm.wilhelp.com (Goin' Nova) wrote:
> 
> > What really sucks is that Mac Gamers now have to beg to get their
> favorite games
> > ported? Want "xyzzy" ? Send e-mail to the developer/publisher and let 'em
> 
> No, what sucks is that Mac gamers _think_ they have to beg to get any
> quality games at all. If even one tenth of the energy that went into
> begging for PC scraps was redirected to actively supporting Mac-first or
> Mac-only shareware and hobbyist developers, some of these game makers
> would have enough revenue to keep themselves in business.
> 
> The longer we delude ourselves into thinking we have to have every AAA
> list PC title, the shorter the life expectancy of the MacOS as an
> entertainment platform can be expected.

> Peter Cohen

Something tells me Rhapsody is going to change a lot of developer thinking
when it becomes possible to write code once and easily recompile it for
almost any platform.

-- 
Regards,

Gary Zuercher
http://www.chromaconcepts.com

In article <mcox-ya02408000R0305980946240001@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
mcox@ihug.co.nz (Martin Cox) wrote:

> In article <garyz-0205981222220001@cx42105-a.irvn1.occa.home.com>,
> garyz@chromaconcepts.com (Gary Zuercher) wrote:
> 
> >Something tells me Rhapsody is going to change a lot of developer thinking
> >when it becomes possible to write code once and easily recompile it for
> >almost any platform.
> 
> Ah, but that requires the PC owner to actually _have_ Rhapsody (or the
> multi-hued box under Windows) which isn't likely to take a large enough
> percentage of the market to convince game companies (IMHO).

No, it does not.  Rhapsody applications (written to the "yellow box" spec)
will run ON TOP of Windows 95/98 or Windows NT.  The libraries that are
needed for this to happen can be shipped with the application, free of
charge.  The Windows user won't even have to know it is a rhapsody app.

That said, for action games, I doubt this is too viable of an alternative,
at least currently.  The yellowbox is much more geared towards traditional
apps.

> Most PC users have enough trouble understanding Windows, let alone another
> OS on top of it...
> 
> --
> Martin Cox <mcox@ihug.co.nz>
> The (Incomplete) VirtualPC User's Guide   
<http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~mcox/vpc/>

+--------------------------+-----------------------------------+
|       Andrew Welch       |       Ambrosia Software, Inc.     |
|      Thaumaturgist       |     http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/    |
+--------------------------+-----------------------------------+

In article <mcox-ya02408000R0305980946240001@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
mcox@ihug.co.nz (Martin Cox) wrote:

> In article <garyz-0205981222220001@cx42105-a.irvn1.occa.home.com>,
> garyz@chromaconcepts.com (Gary Zuercher) wrote:
> 
> >Something tells me Rhapsody is going to change a lot of developer thinking
> >when it becomes possible to write code once and easily recompile it for
> >almost any platform.
> 
> Ah, but that requires the PC owner to actually _have_ Rhapsody (or the
> multi-hued box under Windows) which isn't likely to take a large enough
> percentage of the market to convince game companies (IMHO).
> 
> Most PC users have enough trouble understanding Windows, let alone another
> OS on top of it...


Developers do need to have Rhapsody (at least for now), but end users can
run "Yellow Box" applications on Windows 95/NT. (In fact, OpenStep has
worked that way for several years already.) All they need is the
appropriate libraries (DLLs) which developers will be able to ship free
with the application. It's the same as requiring ActiveX, for instance. In
fact, rumor has it that Microsoft _may_ even bundle the DLLs with Windows
98 and NT 5.

....................................................
MATTHEW VAUGHAN
matthewv at best dot com (damn spammers...)
http://www.best.com/~matthewv/
....................................................

In article <see-below-0205982242140001@209.24.241.203>,
see-below@not-my-address.com (Matthew Vaughan) wrote:

> In article <mcox-ya02408000R0305980946240001@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> mcox@ihug.co.nz (Martin Cox) wrote:
> 
> > In article <garyz-0205981222220001@cx42105-a.irvn1.occa.home.com>,
> > garyz@chromaconcepts.com (Gary Zuercher) wrote:
> > 
> > >Something tells me Rhapsody is going to change a lot of developer thinking
> > >when it becomes possible to write code once and easily recompile it for
> > >almost any platform.
> > 
> > Ah, but that requires the PC owner to actually _have_ Rhapsody (or the
> > multi-hued box under Windows) which isn't likely to take a large enough
> > percentage of the market to convince game companies (IMHO).
> > 
> > Most PC users have enough trouble understanding Windows, let alone another
> > OS on top of it...
> 
> Developers do need to have Rhapsody (at least for now), but end users can
> run "Yellow Box" applications on Windows 95/NT. (In fact, OpenStep has
> worked that way for several years already.) All they need is the
> appropriate libraries (DLLs) which developers will be able to ship free
> with the application. It's the same as requiring ActiveX, for instance. In
> fact, rumor has it that Microsoft _may_ even bundle the DLLs with Windows
> 98 and NT 5.

Oh, I might even add that the application will _look and behave_ like a
Windows application when being run under Windows, but look like a Mac
application when run on a Mac, etc., since the libraries pass interface
commands through to the appropriate native APIs of the system it's being
run on. This means the user need never even know it's a "Rhapsody"
application. And to get a program running on all supported platforms is
generally little more than clicking a compiler option switch. 

This is what's so unbelievably cool about Rhapsody apps - they're truly
cross-platform in a way that actually works much more reliably than Java,
and with full speed and richness as well. Yellow Box will also make a
fantastic extension of Java, so that Java applets which use it can finally
feel like true, mature applications on each respective platform. And it
gets even better when you include cross-platform QuickTime support (which
includes a lot more than video, for instance some 3D stuff).

....................................................
MATTHEW VAUGHAN
matthewv at best dot com (damn spammers...)
http://www.best.com/~matthewv/
....................................................

In article <garyz-0205981222220001@cx42105-a.irvn1.occa.home.com>,
garyz@chromaconcepts.com (Gary Zuercher) wrote:

>Something tells me Rhapsody is going to change a lot of developer thinking
>when it becomes possible to write code once and easily recompile it for
>almost any platform.

Ah, but that requires the PC owner to actually _have_ Rhapsody (or the
multi-hued box under Windows) which isn't likely to take a large enough
percentage of the market to convince game companies (IMHO).

Most PC users have enough trouble understanding Windows, let alone another
OS on top of it...

--
Martin Cox <mcox@ihug.co.nz>
The (Incomplete) VirtualPC User's Guide    <http://shell.ihug.co.nz/~mcox/vpc/>

> Most PC users have enough trouble understanding Windows, let alone another
> OS on top of it...

But. since YellowBox is no OS, there wont be no prob :)

>> >Something tells me Rhapsody is going to change a lot of developer
thinking
>> >when it becomes possible to write code once and easily recompile it for
>> >almost any platform.
>> 
>> Ah, but that requires the PC owner to actually _have_ Rhapsody (or the
>> multi-hued box under Windows) which isn't likely to take a large enough
>> percentage of the market to convince game companies (IMHO).

>Developers do need to have Rhapsody (at least for now), but end users can
>run "Yellow Box" applications on Windows 95/NT. 

While I think the yellow box will provide a good base for cross-platform
development
for "grown up" applications, I think game developers might want to focus
their attenon 
more on what they can get out of QuickTime 3 (assuming the licensing madness
is 
ever straightened out). Since game programming is very performance and
graphics
oriented, there's usually some really unportable code in the guts of games.
There is a lot of the mac toolbox available in QT3, you can develop on win
or mac, and it
some apparently fast blitting routines (faster than copy bits, plus
supporting alpha
channel transparency, rotation, etc.). This stuff works on the mac
obviously, and works
on windows, and takes advantage of DirectX if it is installed, but still
works if DirectX
is not there. And of course you have all the "normal" QT stuff -- movies,
midi, support
of all major graphics file formats built in...

If possible, perhaps the yellow box could provide a nice cross-platform
shell, and
QT 3 take care of  a lot of the sound and graphics inside. You still
couldn't get 
Quake II to work, but I imagine you could get 2D and 2.5D type games to work

fine this way.

Just my 2 yen,

Colin.
------------------------
T. Colin Mack
Satelight, Inc.
Sapporo, Japan
colin@satelight.co.jp
www.satelight.co.jp
------------------------

In article <EsGw8H.3rJ@news.bug.co.jp>, "T. Colin Mack"
<colin@satelight.co.jp> wrote:

> >> >Something tells me Rhapsody is going to change a lot of developer
> thinking
> >> >when it becomes possible to write code once and easily recompile it for
> >> >almost any platform.
> >> 
> >> Ah, but that requires the PC owner to actually _have_ Rhapsody (or the
> >> multi-hued box under Windows) which isn't likely to take a large enough
> >> percentage of the market to convince game companies (IMHO).
> 
> >Developers do need to have Rhapsody (at least for now), but end users can
> >run "Yellow Box" applications on Windows 95/NT. 
> 
> While I think the yellow box will provide a good base for cross-platform
> development
> for "grown up" applications, I think game developers might want to focus
> their attenon 
> more on what they can get out of QuickTime 3 (assuming the licensing madness
> is 
> ever straightened out). Since game programming is very performance and
> graphics
> oriented, there's usually some really unportable code in the guts of games.
> There is a lot of the mac toolbox available in QT3, you can develop on win
> or mac, and it
> some apparently fast blitting routines (faster than copy bits, plus
> supporting alpha
> channel transparency, rotation, etc.). This stuff works on the mac
> obviously, and works
> on windows, and takes advantage of DirectX if it is installed, but still
> works if DirectX
> is not there. And of course you have all the "normal" QT stuff -- movies,
> midi, support
> of all major graphics file formats built in...
> 
> fine this way.
> 
> Just my 2 yen,
> ------------------------
> T. Colin Mack

Apple announced today that there will be a greatly expanded games support 
at the WWDC, including game support for Rhapsody developers. Probably 
in line with their new stategy to return to the home computer market, as games 
are a MUST in this market.

-- 
Regards,

Gary Zuercher
http://www.chromaconcepts.com

In article <garyz-0505981133140001@cx42105-a.irvn1.occa.home.com>,
garyz@chromaconcepts.com (Gary Zuercher) wrote:

> Apple announced today that there will be a greatly expanded games support 
> at the WWDC, including game support for Rhapsody developers. Probably 
> in line with their new stategy to return to the home computer market, as
games 
> are a MUST in this market.

You must have read MacOS Rumors today. There haven't been any official
press announcements from Apple regarding expanded game support at WWDC
today, at least none that have been propogated by Apple's Web site or
through the usual news channels.

Checking the WWDC conference schedule at
<http://developer.apple.com/wwdc98/>, it's apparent that Quicktime
development is taking center stage. There are also some dicussions on
technology potentially related to gaming, like DVD and USB. So far, I can
only find one conference that's specific to gaming: #138, MacOS Game
Technology API's, confirmed for Hall C at 11:30 AM.

Now admittedly, there are a whole bunch of holes in the schedule posted on
the WWDC Web site. Still, I find it hard to believe that Apple would
suddenly dump a bunch of forums on gaming at this late date, with less
than a week before the conference begins. Presuming the rumors are true, I
wonder how many more developers are going to scramble to buy a ticket and
the exorbitant plane fare that such a trip would incur to attend a handful
of game sessions at WWDC?

--
Peter Cohen, Editor in Chief                 flargh@tikkabik.com
Tikkabik Mac Game News                   http://www.tikkabik.com
* Mac Game & Edutainment News, Giveaways, Interviews and More! *