Let's get as many signatures as humanly possible. We want to wake up the MacSofts and Ataris of the world to the needs we have as Mac users. The need to be treated equal and to not take the back seat to PC gamers. We want Civ 4 delivered in a timely fashion!

Sign it and pass it on! Post and spread this everywhere you think a Mac gamer will see it.

Civ 4 Mac same as PC release date petition. (http://www.petitiononline.com/C4MRD/petition.html)

Thanks,
Andrew

Signed it and I will tell the world!!!!

The only problem is that atari is no longer involved in civ 4...

But I signed anyway...

Sign it and pass it on! Post and spread this everywhere you think a Mac gamer will see it.


Sure, why not.

But, don't post this at the MacGamer Forums. I did that once, and they banned me. Imagine that, me, getting banned. :confused:

I've signed it, but I don't see it doing much good. They'll judge the commercial proposition when deciding where and when to spend their development and marketing dollars, not a plea for fair play.

Thanks for signing Alan (and everyone else, for that matter). I know it will basically fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes rather) and that it's probably unrealistic from a business standpoint, but that doesn't make it right. At least it will let them know we are sick of being treated like second-class citizens. And the very least, it will voice our concerns as a unified front and give them something to chew on, knowing we won't be "silent" consumers.

I know from personal experience that it's just not a good business practice to ignore the wishes of your main source of income and treat them with disrespect.

Trabpukcip:
Atari still handles tech support, yes? I've gone to their site recently for info and it looked as if they were still handling issues. Nonetheless, when the "final" petition is ready, we'll get it to the right people.

Just wondering what you guys think. How many signatures will make an impression on the developers?

Just wondering what you guys think. How many signatures will make an impression on the developers?Unfortunately, I think you'd need thousands.

Good luck with this though!

... but that doesn't make it right.
Right and wrong are not business concepts, they are moral ones. Their impact on the bottom line is negligible or negative if the number of disaffected customers is small compared with the cost of satisfying them.

I know from personal experience that it's just not a good business practice to ignore the wishes of your main source of income and treat them with disrespect.
I spent 40 years in customer-focused businesses. Mac users are not the 'main source of income" for whoever is making Mac port licencing decisions. Windows users are, and Windows users couldn't care less whether Mac users can play Civ IV at the same time as them.

Ainwood is right, they know how many Mac copies they expect to sell *if* they release it, and it would take a major surprise to make them revise that assessment.

Signed it. Good luck!

Utterly meaningless, unfortunately. Such petitions won't tell anyone anything they don't already know, and certainly won't ever be considered in any decision-making process. The only thing you can ever hope to accomplish is to make yourself feel like you're "doing something" - much like watching something bake in the oven.

And, yes, if petitions are posted on forums where the user agreement AND the main forum page expressly state in bold that all petitions are forbidden... you're almost certain to get banned for it. And rightly so.

And, yes, if petitions are posted on forums where the user agreement AND the main forum page expressly state in bold that all petitions are forbidden... you're almost certain to get banned for it. And rightly so.

Yeah well, I didn't read it. Lazy, but an honest mistake. :)

Utterly meaningless, unfortunately. Such petitions won't tell anyone anything they don't already know, and certainly won't ever be considered in any decision-making process.

I can vouch for this. Anyone with any say or influence in the Mac version already knows the obvious - Civ4 would do well on the Mac. Because most Mac users, developers and publishers know what I've just said and know the futility of Mac petitions, they're unlikely to sign it. That leaves PC developers, publishers and users - and they really don't care. ;-)

Put another way, it'd be like starting a petition to get Sims 2 for the Mac if it hadn't already been announced.

Alan: Nonetheless, right and wrong are also decisions. And decisions factor into business concepts, so essentially I disagree. Read any of Dale Carnegie's books and you'll see what I'm talking about. Treating people and your customers with respect is good business. There is no morality issue. It's common sense and good judgment.

My message wasn't directed at the developers who cater to PC users. Mac users are the main source of income for Mac-based developers and for this particular title. Regardless of whether they develop for PC users or not, you still can't disrespect your consumers. If you are trying to sell product, you don't alienate your consumer base, plain and simple.

Consumer voices do change and influence business decisions all the time.
You're painting a half-empty outlook here. If we had thousands of voices (which is not likely, but worth attempting), we could sound the alarm and turn some heads in our direction.

Utterly meaningless, unfortunately. Such petitions won't tell anyone anything they don't already know, and certainly won't ever be considered in any decision-making process. The only thing you can ever hope to accomplish is to make yourself feel like you're "doing something" - much like watching something bake in the oven.

Some petitions do work. I am sure that the "petitions" sent to UPN about Enterprise did help and other TV shows have been renewed based upon major fan base action. Then again, read my sig. :goodjob:

All roads lead to the cemetary, but look on the bright side of life, wontcha? No need to be quite so pessimistic. I don't care about the me in this. I care about the why and frankly, it's been going on way too long for us to lay back and take it. Perhaps "we" need to cast a wider net. This is a much bigger issue. Although a lofty suggestion, we may even need to get tough and use words like "boycott." Words that get the attention of those looking at the bottom line.

And I really don't care if I get banned. Gettting a new account anywhere is almost as easy as breathing.

Utterly meaningless, unfortunately. Such petitions won't tell anyone anything they don't already know, and certainly won't ever be considered in any decision-making process. The only thing you can ever hope to accomplish is to make yourself feel like you're "doing something" - much like watching something bake in the oven.

And, yes, if petitions are posted on forums where the user agreement AND the main forum page expressly state in bold that all petitions are forbidden... you're almost certain to get banned for it. And rightly so.

All roads lead to the cemetary, but look on the bright side of life, wontcha? No need to be quite so pessimistic. I don't care about the me in this. I care about the why and frankly, it's been going on way too long for us to lay back and take it. Perhaps "we" need to cast a wider net. This is a much bigger issue. Although a lofty suggestion, we may even need to get tough and use words like "boycott." Words that get the attention of those looking at the bottom line.
There's a difference between pessimistic and realistic. Realistically, there's no point. The situation is as it is for logical, fundamental business reasons. The people you're directing this petition at would like to change things as much (or probably more) than you do. But it just isn't practical.

And that's above and beyond the twin factors that (a) you'll just be telling people things they already know and (b) they'd have to be crazy to make any business decisions based on petitions with even several hundred signatures anyway.

Also, threatening boycotts won't do you any good either unless you could somehow manage to get a very large fraction of the entire Mac gaming community to sign on. Which you won't. It also won't do any good if you DID manage that unless the underlying factors determining why things work they way they do change because, again, the Aspyrs, Macsofts, and so on of the world don't like the situation any better than you do. They'd already be doing things differently if they could.

In order for things to change, mainly what's needed, as I understand it, is for (a) Winblows developers to design and code their projects from the ground up with Mac ports in mind and (b) Apple's market share to grow enough to make (a) profitable. Preaching to/threatening the choir will do not an iota to affect either of those things.

And I really don't care if I get banned. Gettting a new account anywhere is almost as easy as breathing.
Not if the admins in question are willing to use a big enough stick. I seem to recall at least one occasion when Corey started banning entire ISPs when a previously-banned poster came back.

Some petitions do work. I am sure that the "petitions" sent to UPN about Enterprise did help and other TV shows have been renewed based upon major fan base action.
Sometimes, yes. It happens pretty much ONLY when the people making the decisions were wrong about what their customers thought (does not apply in this case, all Mac publishers/developers are perfectly well aware of how Mac gamers view the situation) AND the petition/equivalent action is on a sufficiently large scale to demonstrate that (as in, a large fraction of the customer base).
So even if you got every single Mac user alive to sign... it wouldn't do any good because the petition can't tell anybody anything they don't already know.

Ive signed the petition - MAC Games...Now!
How about that for a slogan!?

Personally Im prepared to wait a few months as the PC users drown in the mess of Direct X bugs and farting around with driver updates. Civ 3 on the Mac is almost perfect in its stability and if the price for a game that works well is a few months delay, let the PC pondlife have it first....they dont have it best do they?

And finally...one person emailing the developers doesnt do much. But then another, and another, and soon they start to realise that people with Macs have money to spend on games. The market under OS X has improved games for the Mac greatly and climbs slowly but surely. The can of **** market, i mean PC market is bleeding customers to Playstation, XBox, Mac...anyone basically whose games work!

Happy Christmas All

My message wasn't directed at the developers who cater to PC users. Mac users are the main source of income for Mac-based developers and for this particular title.

I'm unclear on how petitioning these folks will open eyes, or to use your words, cause them to "respect their customers" in any measurable way.

In case it's not clear, I was the main programmer for the Mac port of Civ3 and I now work for another Mac game publisher (Aspyr). That this particular petition is being formed strikes me as slightly odd, given that Civ3 had a near-simultaneous release on the Mac in the first place, mostly as a product of the urging of everyone on the Mac side (and with some help from Firaxis) in the first place. Compared to most other Mac games, Civ3 had a pretty remarkable release in this regard.

Let me just say again: petitioning anyone on the Mac side for a game or series that is wildly popular on the PC side isn't an effective use of your time. *We* already know - we play and love these games ourselves, and we love the Mac. Telling Aspyr or MacSoft that you do as well, particularly for a no-brainer like Civ4, just ends up being an exercise in self-gratification.

This really should have been addressed as a much broader issue to the larger Mac gaming development business community. I don't think you are seeing my more general point about Mac gamers being treated like second-class citizens. Do you think they respect us by shipping buggy titles a year after they hit the PC market with marginal support? I see your point about the Civ 3 launch dates, but this is aimed at Civ 4 and ideally, all Mac titles.

I appreciate your hard work, but yours and Alan's experiences don't make either of your opinons any more qualified on this topic than the average user, who know exactly how they are being treated. I worked for 5 years at a game developer as an Art Director, but who cares? I'm not using that as a point to bolster my opinion. Now, that would be self-gratification. This is definitely not about ego at all. I could care less about that. This is about getting some respect as a consumer and not being treated like an afterthought. It's that simple. Anyway, I saw the business mechanics of how they dealt with their Mac releases and I know other companies have similar approaches. It's sad.

I don't expect much of this petition as it would be very difficult to get the signatures required to raise the eyebrows of the developers. I took action with the thought maybe, just maybe, something could be done. Maybe I'm wrong to think an industry can change, but groups do it everyday. It's just getting the group together that's the trick. This is after all, America, where consumer voices can have impact, given the numbers and appropriate channels.

I tend to agree with Brad; this petition is more or less "preaching to the choir".

However, there is a feature that Firaxis should be petitioned upon while the game is still in development, and that is using TCP/IP for the multiplayer. I think that I saw an interview on InsideMacGames.com (with either Brad or Glenda Adams) back when Civ3:PTW was still in development for the PC side that Westlake was pushing Firaxis to use TCP/IP instead of Microsoft's DirectPlay for the networking. As we all know, they went Microsoft and we Mac users still don't get to play multiplayer all these years later. THAT is worth a petition, e-mail writing campaign, or something, because it is simply a slap in the face to Mac users.

I still can't understand why they took a step backwards in this regard when Civ 2 used TCP and was so great cross-platform.

JoAT

Do you think they respect us by shipping buggy titles a year after they hit the PC market with marginal support?

Who do you mean when you say "they" - Mac developers and publishers? (In other words, me?)

Yeah, shipping a Mac game a year after the PC version is released sucks major balls. But often the PC publisher doesn't even want to start talking about the Mac version until shipping time approaches for the PC version. So by the time the contracts have been worked out and we can get code from them, we're frequently looking at 2-3 months past the PC release. Tack several months of Mac development on that, and there you go. I believe this is where we're having a disconnect. Look back on that process and you'll see that there's really not much to be gained from having our customers petition us for simultaneous releases, since we're often pressing the deal as fast as we can in the first place.

I'll again point to Civ3 as an example of one of the very few times we were able to get some serious momentum on the Mac version before the PC version shipped. This was not a case of us waking up one day and deciding that, hey, we need to show some love to Mac Civ3 players for the heck of it and then return to the status quo for everything else.

As for "buggy" titles, I'm not sure what specifically that is meant to imply, but using Civ3 as an example again, I don't believe it's appreciably more buggy than the PC release. ;) I'm sure the companies I've worked for have released clunkers every now and then, but I'd say that's the exception, not the rule. I should add here that I've never done work for MacPlay. ;)

This is about getting some respect as a consumer and not being treated like an afterthought. It's that simple. Anyway, I saw the business mechanics of how they dealt with their Mac releases and I know other companies have similar approaches. It's sad.

The 3 main Mac publishers (Aspyr, MacSoft and Feral) have really only one line of business - Mac games, and the mechanics of this business are such that there's really not an easy way to get simultaneous releases; those things are more often than not out of our hands entirely. It's not a matter of "respect" or treating customers as an "afterthought", it's a question of "is this even possible?"

Over the years, I and my other colleagues working on Mac game conversions have tried to educate Mac gamers as to how the business works with the intention of sharing some of the obstacles we're up against. A few of these have been mentioned earlier in this thread, but I'd be happy to talk about them if you'd like to hear about them. :)

I don't expect much of this petition as it would be very difficult to get the signatures required to raise the eyebrows of the developers

The problem is a bit deeper than that. You could have a billion Mac users sign it and it wouldn't do any good if we couldn't work out a deal with the PC publisher before the PC version ships. That's why, as someone else said, this petition is essentially preaching to the choir.

Old thread, but...

1) Brad O., if you are still around, thanks for the great work on the Mac port. I spent many an hour on my Mac with Civ III and noticed no bugs and almost never crashed. The only thing I couldn't figure out how to do was get a view of the other leaders' faces in the F4 screen when I had more than six other nations in the game. I could never see entirely who had right of passage with whom or who was at war with whom.

2) I can live with a delayed release. I am sorely disappointed to be unable to use or enjoy Conquests and other mods to graphics and gameplay. That is the way in which I feel sadly neglected as a Mac user and like I am missing out on a lot of fun.

Can anyone tell me why exactly Conquests was not or cannot be readily ported to Mac?

The only thing I couldn't figure out how to do was get a view of the other leaders' faces in the F4 screen when I had more than six other nations in the game. You can see seven rivals at a time on F4. If there are more, and you know them, then you can shift-control-click any of the spaces to bring up a menu of the invisible ones and select one of them to replace the one you clicked. Your new set of seven then remains in action for future visits to F4 until you change it again.

Can anyone tell me why exactly Conquests was not or cannot be readily ported to Mac?

I can't because I don't know. ;) However, I can assume.

It was my understanding that initially, sales of PTW on the PC were not so hot - enough to make a Mac port unprofitable.

I believe that eventually changed though, but it was long after I'd left Westlake for Aspyr. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say lack of manpower (combined with the age of the game) is now the main factor stopping Mac Conquests/PTW. But I'd like to stress that this is just an educated guess.

I signed- -whether or not it helps, it only took like 30 seconds of my life, which is less time than it would take to express why I doubt it would help, and what do we have to lose (other than @ 30 seconds). Thanks for taking the time to set up the petition.

To Brad Oliver —

Hey, Brad, thanks for the great port of Civ III. It's nice that a "big wig" from a Mac software company drops by our little forum.

So, help me out here. Aspyr's and MacSoft's main job is to port already existing PC games to the Mac, correct? There are no new games created that could be dual platform from the get-go?

I guess I'm thinking of what Blizzard does. It's too bad they have such a tiny, tiny amount of games to choose from. And they are all the same genre — not that they're bad. Starcraft and Warcraft rank up there with the all-time greats.

Anyway, I'm rambling. It would be nice if there were more dual platform releases.

I just signed the petition (possibly twice by mistake) and I echo many of the other sentiments here by saying it won't make a difference the way the system is set up. If Apple sales of the Mac Mini are ten times what the iMac were you might start to see a shift in the way developers do business. It's all about numbers and they (PeeCees) have more...a lot more.

Why, if you wanted to make the most money, would you develop a game for the Mac first? Or even simultaneously if it would slow your efforts to reach the most gamers? Get the game out on PC, if it sells well, port it to other platforms (Mac, Linix, Consoles) and make more money to make more games.

I have several friends who have been in the industry in different roles and they all pretty much say the same as Brad. It doesn't mean I like it, but it is the reality we live in now on our choice of computer platform. Talk to your PC buddies and get them to buy a Mac with their iPod... Then we will see more games.

I have a mac with the origional civ. I had to get a PC and the conquests to finally play it. :( We should be treated equally. As it says in the Declearation of Independence written by the Aztecs and signed by Weorge Goshington, "All men are created equal."

I have a mac with the origional civ. I had to get a PC and the conquests to finally play it. :(
Scary :eek: And did it make you feel better?

I signed!

Following the latest rumors (here in Germany) there will be no technical reason anymore because word is that in producing Civ 4 there is no use of MS. DirectX.

I signed!

Following the latest rumors (here in Germany) there will be no technical reason anymore because word is that in producing Civ 4 there is no use of MS. DirectX.That would be good news! Any links?

That would be good news! Any links?

Link - nop - sorry.

We had the discussion in the german webring in December 2004.

ColdFever told us about the fact, that Civ 4 will be done using C++ and Python.

Here is the link (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=19859) to the thread, which is in german in fact......pay attention to post No. 10

Scary :eek: And did it make you feel better?

Well, I couldn't play the 9 million other PC games my parents had bought for me before then. They forgot to look at the boxes. :rolleyes:

Link - nop - sorry.

We had the discussion in the german webring in December 2004.

ColdFever told us about the fact, that Civ 4 will be done using C++ and Python.

Here is the link (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=19859) to the thread, which is in german in fact......pay attention to post No. 10

Thanks. I'll study that carefully.

My German is very rusty, but I think his emphasis is not on the C++ language itself, but on a high performance library they've used. I don't think C++ in itself would give us anything as end users, it just makes the code more modular and maintainable.

Python is related to the mod development facilites. It will be a lot easier for modders to adapt the game using Python as a scripting language.

The critical section re. multiplayer is at the end of post #10. I need to work out the precise translation of that sentence, unless you have it:

Und anstatt wie bei Civ3 einen Multiplayer-Modus am Ende oben drauf zu propfen, ist der Multiplayer-Modus von Anfang an Teil der Entwicklung und hat starken Einfluss auf das gesamte Event-Modell.

Link - nop - sorry.

We had the discussion in the german webring in December 2004.

ColdFever told us about the fact, that Civ 4 will be done using C++ and Python.

Here is the link (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=19859) to the thread, which is in german in fact......pay attention to post No. 10
Well, Civ3 was also written in C++ (I think), and used Directx - Directx is simply a library of graphics functions that can be called pretty-much by any programming language. Given that its a heavily 3D game (by the looks of the screenshots), I'd imaging that they must be using some sort of graphics API / library - I would have assumed DirectX (why make the programmers learn another set of APIs?) - but if not, then would that mean its OpenGL? OpenGL is usable on Mac, isn't it? But the other "benefit" of DirectX is that it has DirectPlay for multiplayer. Is there an Open Source equivalent?

Well, Civ3 was also written in C++ (I think), and used Directx - Directx is simply a library of graphics functions that can be called pretty-much by any programming language. Given that its a heavily 3D game (by the looks of the screenshots), I'd imaging that they must be using some sort of graphics API / library - I would have assumed DirectX (why make the programmers learn another set of APIs?) - but if not, then would that mean its OpenGL? OpenGL is usable on Mac, isn't it? But the other "benefit" of DirectX is that it has DirectPlay for multiplayer. Is there an Open Source equivalent?

Halo also used DirectX (DX9) and was published on the mac which has cross-platform MP.

linky (http://halo.bungie.org/misc/tamte_interview.091103/)

I signed the petition, for "hope" if anything.

I also would like to thank Brad Oliver for his efforts, something I'v certainly benifited greatly by.

Mac users should not be forced to buy P.C.'s the anguish is just too much! Therapy is required to deal with the mental duress and phsycological dysfunction caused by feelings of being traped millions of years in the past dealing with non friendly, complicated, antiquated and frusrating machine. PC's "should have the greatest propoganda rating of all merchandise".

I'm still upset I should have to use a PC just to play a better version of a game I payed $50 US. for. I then found civIII and ptw and c3c all for $24.99. Now shouldn't the extra cost for the mac user help fund the project?

DirectPlay is the fly in the ointment. It's M$ proprietary. Brad says it's no big deal, but if it was so easy why didn't they port PtW?

DirectPlay is the fly in the ointment. It's M$ proprietary. Brad says it's no big deal, but if it was so easy why didn't they port PtW?

Extremely low sales on the PC side. It was released very buggy and MP was, more or less, broken upon release. I think, IMHO, what did in a port of C3C is that cIV was announced, or leaked, relatively soon after C3C's release.

You're right about DirectPlay, but that shouldn't be a problem since most mac games released these days aren't cross-platform MP anyway.

That explains the non-release of C3C. But I said PtW, not C3C. It was released way before C3C, and version 1.21 was playable relatively bug-free. It was available in late 2001, so could have been ported to Mac OS, even without the multi-play.

That explains the non-release of C3C. But I said PtW, not C3C. It was released way before C3C, and version 1.21 was playable relatively bug-free. It was available in late 2001, so could have been ported to Mac OS, even without the multi-play.

In SP, PTW was playable upon release. But, when you consider the patch history of Civ3, MacSoft didn't want to go down that road again, IMHO (pure conjecture). As it is, we barely got 1.29, thanks in large part to cracker's efforts through dialogue with Brad Oliver. With the scene set for PTW being another patch-party, I feel MacSoft chose not to, plus as I mentioned, PTW didn't sell as well as expected.

The critical section re. multiplayer is at the end of post #10. I need to work out the precise translation of that sentence, unless you have it:

That says, that the multiplayer part will be a part of the programm from the very beginning on, the design of the whole software will following the multiplayer idea. It will not be something additional like an AdOn or a PlugIn again.

I understand ColdFevers statement in that way, that DirectX will not be used in programming Civ IV, but I guess I should secure that and ask him especially about this point.

They may just be saying that the *game* design accommodates multiplayer better. They can use DirectPlay, or any other communications method, to implement multi-player, whether they create it as an add-on or integrate it. It's just a communications protocol and an associated set of programming commands.

I hope they were not saying the multi-player programming structure itself is non-modular. If they integrate DirectPlay commands into the heart of the code it would be more difficult to create a Mac version that doesn't use DirectPlay, as they can't just leave one chunk of code out, they'd have to patch out individual DirectPlay commands in the Mac version. It could then mean they have to build a Mac DirectPlay implementation in order to port C4 at all.

Well, new infos, and not the good one:

Allerdings, und die absolut neueste Version ist Pflicht, ohne die läuft gar nichts. DirectX ist bei Civ4 überall drin, ob es die Grafik einschließlich der neuen Pixelshadertechnik oder der Netzwerkcode ist.

Und der Hardware und dem Betriebssystem fordert Civ4 eine Menge ab. Insofern würde ich allen Civ4-Interessenten raten, sich für den Herbst mit Folgendem zu versorgen:
WinXP/2000 (für Win 98 dürfte es eng werden)
512 MB (besser noch 1024, 256 dürften eng werden)
Grafikkarte mit 64 MB RAM (32 MB dürften eng werden)

Das sind natürlich keine offiziellen Angaben, aber die genannten Daten sind auch für fast alle anderen hochmodernen Programme inzwischen sinnvoll, und das megakomplexe Civ4 dürfte davon keine Ausnahme machen.

it says, that Direct X in the latest version is an "must have" for playing Civ 4
it will run on Win XP with 512 MB RAM and 64 MB Video RAM minimum.

These are not official datas, but they will fit.

I don't think DirectX is a problem. It's the graphics display system to handle sprite movement and scene textures and such, and was used for CivIII, and the Mac version was produced OK. DirectPlay is the multiplayer communications technology.

I don't think DirectX is a problem. It's the graphics display system to handle sprite movement and scene textures and such, and was used for CivIII, and the Mac version was produced OK. DirectPlay is the multiplayer communications technology.


Is DirectPlay not an part of DirectX package. I don't know.

Well, we will see... but reading about the fact that a Directwhatever technique is in use does not raise my mood, you know.

Yes, reading M$ site info, it does appear that DirectPlay is a component of the DirectX suite. I guess ease of porting, or otherwise, depends on how dependent the software is on each aspect of DirectX, but we can only speculate.

hmmm

I am not an IT specialist, just a businessman....

But I will have Civ 4 on my Mac :D

So I have searched the internet for a while using keywords like "macintosh +Direct X" ...

Well, I found two homepages, one is http://www.libsdl.org/index.php which sounds quite interessting (I guess)
and I found that: http://www.coderus.com/ and I guess that should be the end of all sorrows. Because they present MacDX which is - so I have understand the message - the Macintosh version of Direct X.

Or not ?

The Coderus MacDX product certainly looks promising. I have no idea whether it covers all the API calls used in CivIII or IV, but it certainly seems to have the main components, including DirectPlay. I wonder how much they want for it :hmm:

go tell it on the mountain - or Brad ;)

Hate to burst your bubble guys, but MacDX won't get Mac-PC network play going. DirectX is made up of lots of parts; DirectDraw, Direct3D, DirectPlay, etc... All of the Mac porting houses have coding libraries similar to MacDX to help in porting windows games to the Mac. MAC DX and similar software helps mitigate the porting of the graphics and sound of a game over to the Mac, but the networking component known as DirectPlay is a nut that just can't be cracked.

I looked down this road when PtW came out and it was reported that it used DirectPlay for multiplayer. I posted to every forum and message board I could. The answer I got from people in the industry (maybe even including Brad) was always the same:

If Firaxis uses TCP/IP or some similar open networking standard, we're good. If it's DirectPlay, we're screwed.

I think Brad even metioned in an InsideMacGames.com interview once that he and Westlake Interactive (who he worked for at the time and was doing the port of Civ3) were flat out asking Firaxis to use TCP/IP in PtW to keep Mac-vs.-PC a possibility. You see where that got us... :(

Jack_of_All_Trades

What does the DirectPlay component of MacDX do then? I downloaded the demo of that piece specifically, and it appeared to contain the sort of API calls you'd expect. I couldn't make it join a client to a server, but I assumed that was just my lack of knowledge of the protocol.

I dug up the following 2 quotes from Brad Oliver and Glenda Adams on the issue (God bless Google):

From- http://apolyton.net/misc/interviews/ac_bradoliver2.shtml

"DanQ: In terms of multiplayer capabilities, will it be compatible to allow Mac SMACer's to go head-to-head with their Windows-based counterparts?

Brad Oliver: Very sadly, no. The Windows port uses DirectPlay, which is a proprietary networking protocol designed by Microsoft and which only runs under Windows.

It would be a near-Herculean task to reverse-engineer DirectPlay to get it to run on the Mac, Linux, etc..., and to date Microsoft hasn't expressed any interest in helping port DirectPlay to another OS. I doubt very much that Microsoft would welcome someone reverse-engineering their code without their assistance, and no one really wants to face Microsoft's legal team to find out ;-)

The only way at this point for Mac users to play with Windows users would be if Firaxis were to add networking support that didn't rely on DirectPlay (or any other proprietary scheme) to the Windows version, or Microsoft were to step up to the plate and help get DirectPlay running on the Mac. DirectPlay is very convenient for Win32 programmers as it's a nice high-level networking API, so it's far too tempting for them to ignore. The downside is that it forces a game to only be compatible with Microsoft operating systems. I dream of a day when game developers use open networking protocols.

To that end, I know of at least one currently: OpenPlay, an open-source library which uses a high level API (similar to DirectPlay) and runs on both Win32 and the Mac. It has been field-tested in Bungie's "Myth" series of games. If game developers would use it or something just as open, then it would make our lives a lot easier and would stem the complaints from users who wish to play cross-platform network games. I really can't stress this point enough. If a game company wants to make a game run on more than one platform, use a non-proprietary networking API :-)"

And from- http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=138&Page=2

"IMG: And there’s always the issue of networking. Let’s call it the biological equivalent of a mouth, where one computer has to talk to another. In the case of Macs and PCs, this can be even more difficult because they often speak different languages. Specifically, many PC games use Microsoft’s networking protocol DirectPlay.

Actually, DirectPlay can be thought of as a virus. Mac developers can make software that works with an existing version, but Microsoft frequently updates the code – mutates the virus, if you will – meaning Mac game developers would have to constantly change code in older games to keep them compatible with their Windows cousins.

Glenda: For networking, DirectPlay is a real thorn in the side of Mac gamers. Microsoft hasn't published the internal DirectPlay networking protocols, so the only way to make a Mac game compatible is to reverse engineer DirectPlay and build a compatible library on the Mac. This has been tried in the past, with varying degrees of success. The problem is even if you can get Microsoft to not sue you for reverse engineering DirectPlay, you still have to end up rewriting your Mac DirectPlay library every time Microsoft updates DirectX. So you get stuck in a never ending process of maintaining a network library where you never know what will change next. The scope of a Mac DirectPlay library is large enough I don't think it’s economically feasible to do unless you can use it for several games. But since every game might use a different version of DirectPlay, or different features of the networking, you may not be able to reuse the Mac DirectPlay code from one game in another.

With all the legal and technical (and financial!) hassles, nearly every publisher has opted to do Mac-to-Mac network play only for DirectPlay games."

What does the DirectPlay component of MacDX do then? I downloaded the demo of that piece specifically, and it appeared to contain the sort of API calls you'd expect. I couldn't make it join a client to a server, but I assumed that was just my lack of knowledge of the protocol.

I think MacDX helps in steering DirectPlay calls in a games program into the appropriate protocol on the Mac (like OpenPlay or TCP/IP) when porting the code itself.

JoAT

This subject has been exhausted several times in this forum. Check out threads like this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=67776&highlight=directplay). The most sensible inputs I've seen have been along the lines of:

Who needs network play? It's not appropriate to Civ. If you visit the game servers you'll see what a tiny population of players are involved in it, and a specific Mac-Mac protocol would obviously attract even fewer users. So why can't we just have (PTW/C3C/Civ4) for MacOS without network play?

... well, that depends on the effort involved in creating a version of the code that can run without a DirectPlay interface.

This subject has been exhausted several times in this forum...

Too true; this and a multitude of other forums for all sorts of games. I think publishers really need to start pushing their development houses into using open standards when it comes to networked games, not just for Mac gamers sakes, but also now that a lot of PC games are being ported to consoles. And who knows if games will start making their way to Linux boxes or some yet-unreleased operating systems of the future. Open standards give publishers options, and I don't know of any business that doesn't like to have options.

To bring this post a little more back on the original topic; I still think that Civ 4 coming to the Mac is pretty much a given, even if network play is built in from the beginning and is based on DirectPlay. Sure it will make for some extra work for the porting house to work the code (even then just working Mac-to-Mac only), but the Civ franchise sells too well on the Mac to ignore the audience.

Hopefully Aspyr gets the Mac publishing rights so Brad can get his mits on the game and can do the same quality job on Civ4 as he did on Civ3. :)

JoAT

Who needs network play? It's not appropriate to Civ. If you visit the game servers you'll see what a tiny population of players are involved in it, and a specific Mac-Mac protocol would obviously attract even fewer users. So why can't we just have (PTW/C3C/Civ4) for MacOS without network play?


I agree wholeheartedly. You've got to figure that the companies involved realize this as well.

Hey Dojoboy, are you having trouble with transparency again?

Hey Dojoboy, are you having trouble with transparency again?

Uh, not anymore. ;) I'm using the avatar on a few sites, and just didn't tinker with it. Thanks.

What does the DirectPlay component of MacDX do then?

The same thing our DirectPlay component does at Aspyr - it's a thin layer on top of OpenPlay/NetSprocket. Totally different protocol under the hood.

I guess ease of porting, or otherwise, depends on how dependent the software is on each aspect of DirectX, but we can only speculate.

DirectX (and by extension, DirectPlay) won't make the port significantly harder or longer unless they use some obscure aspect we haven't seen yet. Everyone in the Mac business has a set of DirectX/Win32 libraries that make it a snap, very much like MacDX - the main difference being we don't license our library out.

It all works well for the most part, but to make the point a bit clearer - although we can quickly port DirectPlay code, it won't connect to PC games running DirectPlay, since our version uses a different networking protocol. When you play Age of Empires 2, Age of Mythology or DungeonSiege, for example, you're playing Mac versions that are using DirectPlay "lookalikes" that really run on top of OpenPlay.

DirectX (and by extension, DirectPlay) won't make the port significantly harder or longer unless they use some obscure aspect we haven't seen yet. Everyone in the Mac business has a set of DirectX/Win32 libraries that make it a snap, very much like MacDX - the main difference being we don't license our library out.

It all works well for the most part, but to make the point a bit clearer - although we can quickly port DirectPlay code, it won't connect to PC games running DirectPlay, since our version uses a different networking protocol. When you play Age of Empires 2, Age of Mythology or DungeonSiege, for example, you're playing Mac versions that are using DirectPlay "lookalikes" that really run on top of OpenPlay.

Hi Brad,

just one question to this: Is it not possible to use the same networking protocol - or in other words, why is it not possible to design a networking protocol on the Macintosh which would be a "lookalike" to that networking protocol used in the windows world?

Mac

My thoughts exactly. Low level/network level protocols (the level that sends the data packets back and forth between the players' computers) ought to be the easy bit. If you have the higher level stuff to do with the actual game mechanics sorted and capable fo interfacing with the game software, I really don't see the problem.

My thoughts exactly. Low level/network level protocols (the level that sends the data packets back and forth between the players' computers) ought to be the easy bit.

If you feel that it's fairly easy, I welcome you to try. :)

Certainly you can deduce the actual game data contents - that's the easy bit. Determining the wrappers around it applied by DirectPlay is the hard part. It's like a black box - data comes into your Mac and you have to first decipher how it's laid out and what it contains. Then you have to determine what all those little mystery bits mean so you can send it back to the PC in a way that it knows what to do with it.

You really can't debug it on the PC at a high level. You'll definitely need to invoke a packet sniffer and approach it that way. It's pretty hard-core.

Packet sniffers of one kind or another were the way I first learnt about xmodem, then zmodem then Appletalk, and then about TCP/IP. Trouble is I don't have a source of DirectPlay packets, otherwise I'd take you up on your challenge - seriously!

I love the way this thread is turning...

Brad,

I know it's standard procedure for all game companies to not comment on unannounced games, but to your knowledge, as someone inside the Mac gaming industry, has Take-Two been approaching any (un-named) Mac porting houses about doing the conversion of Civ4? Just blink twice for yes and once for no. ;)

JoAT

I know it's standard procedure for all game companies to not comment on unannounced games, but to your knowledge, as someone inside the Mac gaming industry, has Take-Two been approaching any (un-named) Mac porting houses about doing the conversion of Civ4?

It's safe to assume that any game that has anything resembling name recognition eventually winds up in talks. Of course, that's no guarantee that anything will ever happen.

It's safe to assume that any game that has anything resembling name recognition eventually winds up in talks. Of course, that's no guarantee that anything will ever happen.

Brad, is there a scenario where, IF MacSoft takes on cIV, you could be involved?

Also, is it still plausible that SMAC/x could be released in OSX native, as part of a line of classic games?

Brad, is there a scenario where, IF MacSoft takes on cIV, you could be involved?

The only scenario involving myself and MacSoft would also involve my quitting Aspyr. ;)

Also, is it still plausible that SMAC/x could be released in OSX native, as part of a line of classic games?

Yes, provided some of the legalities get sorted out.

I have a mac with the origional civ. I had to get a PC and the conquests to finally play it. :( We should be treated equally. As it says in the Declearation of Independence written by the Aztecs and signed by Weorge Goshington, "All men are created equal."

I got a Mac because I was so p'd off with my PC :p . It couldn't even start Windows reliably without crashing, :mad: even after a Win reinstall! And now I'm getting bad withdrawel symptoms from all my games :cry: - I've only got Myst that works on Mac too.... Ebay here I come :scan: ! Does anyone know if Civ3 Complete will be coming out on Mac in the next year or so :confused: ? If not, I shall just buy all the components of it ;) .

Quoting from your petition:
" As die-hard Civilization players, gaming devotees and faithful Mac users, we constantly feel the "back of the bus" treatment from the gaming industry. While the VIP PC users get their multitude of titles released "on time", we get the crumbs at a later date, sometimes butchered versions that aren't fully featured or without their accompanying releases (i.e. Conquests and Play the World).

While Apple pushes ahead of PC manufacturers, innovating and breaking ground on their own products, it's :eek: third-party gaming vendors fall flat on their collective faces and "hold out" to see it :eek: the product is a hit first or if the Mac audience is worthy of their title.

But, this isn't about them. This is about Civilization. We are only asking about this one product and :eek: the hopes that you can set the tone for the industry by providing us with a parallel release date to the PC platform. We know it can be done. It's just whether you, the developers, wish to oblige.

You want numbers? There is :eek: an estimated 25 million Mac users worldwide. Apple shipped 876,000 units in the fourth quarter of 2004. It's grown faster than the PC market for the first time in 11 years. Is this really a market you want to ignore and treat like an illegitimate stepchild?

So, set the example. Be the innovator. Release Civilization IV (and all it's :eek: sister releases) for Mac at the same time as for the PC. It's that simple. This is all we ask.

Sincerely,."

I PROTEST! I will not sign the petition until you remove the superfluous apostrophes in the "it's"'s (labelled with :eek:'s) - they are not possessive, so no apostrophe is needed: it should be just "and all its sister releases" etc. Haven't you read Eats, Shoots and Leaves (Lynne Truss, pub. 2003 by Profile Books)? :mischief: Also, the "and" :eek: should be "in", "it :eek: should be "if", "is" should be "are".

Sorry, feel free to hate me! :)

Ahah! A perfectionist! Welcome to the forum, Sophie. :wavey:

I've given up trying to instil any sense of correct English usage around here. Last time I tried I was told I was a spelling nazi. But feel free to tilt at windmills if you think it will do any good :mischief:

PS No, Civ3 Complete won't come out for the Mac, and you won't be able to buy the components either. There is no Conquests, and there is no Play the World. Be happy! Civ3 vanilla is fine. You can join in all the fun of Succession Games and Game of the Month - what more could you want?

PS No, Civ3 Complete won't come out for the Mac, and you won't be able to buy the components either. There is no Conquests, and there is no Play the World. Be happy! Civ3 vanilla is fine. You can join in all the fun of Succession Games and Game of the Month - what more could you want?

There's Game of the Year all over Ebay ... worth the extra 37p or similar over vanilla version? Any votes? :undecide: I'm carefully waiting until this time tomorrow to buy anything off Ebay - the new Apple store in Birmingham opens at 6pm tmrw, and I'm going to see if they have any freebies! [party]
PS I LOVE these smilies! :clap:

I have the Game of the Year version. The extra 37p gives you a printed manual, keyboard layout chart, the Civ3 editor, and a movie of 'The Making of Civ3'. And it's a slightly later version of the (vanilla) game.

Having said that you can download the editor from somewhere (Firaxis site?) and all the patches to update both the editor and game the latest versions are here in these forums. So IMO the only real benefit is the manual and key chart.

I had a printed manual in the plain vanilla copy I have. If you are buying from fleabay you may not get everything that was in the original box anyway.

Have fun at the Apple store opening. If they're giving away any new dual G5s blag one for me, won't you? :D

I got a free Apple teeshirt ... but that's it. The guy right behind me in the queue got a free iBook, and a lady about two minutes behind me got a free iMac. I hate them :) !

That's pants! I wonder if my son was the guy behind you .... a quick email is in order I feel :mischief:

Number 131

I signed not as a member of the Mac community, as I am a staunch supporter of the other team :evil:

However as a recent convert to pbem (see signature) ... i would prefer as many opponents as possible to engage with (even the likes of the misdirected Mac user :p )

Regards and Play Nice :goodjob:

Number 131

I signed not as a member of the Mac community, as I am a staunch supporter of the other team :evil:
Sir, we thank you for your brotherly support. As for being on the "other team," no worries. That condition is often unavoidable and you have our sympathies. I think you'll find Mac users can be accepting no matter what condition you may be afflicted with.
However as a recent convert to pbem (see signature) ... i would prefer as many opponents as possible to engage with (even the likes of the misdirected Mac user :p )
We would be but a small addition to an already crowded field. However, if nothing else, we would certainly be creative opponents.
Regards and Play Nice :goodjob:
Sir, we play so nice you may find you don't mind losing...

For what it is worth, I'm signing too.