×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

123 comments

Yay! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32040906)

I'm pretty sure all 6 mac gamers will be very delighted that this happened.

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32040938)

There are seven of us now you insensitive nerd!

Re:Yay! (2, Funny)

zsimic (548446) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041016)

Oh wow, there are 5 more? And I thought I was alone!

Re:Yay! (4, Funny)

cyp43r (945301) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041260)

Oh boy, we can almost play a fps round now!

Re:Yay! (-1, Troll)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041352)

hey, we went through hell trying to get it to run on Parallels on my friend's mac. Turns out version 3 doesn't support 3D anything at all. His Windows machine's old socket athlon XP single core and 1 GB of ram seemed maybe doable but apparently the AGP Radeon 9600SE doesn't support pixel shader 2.0 or at least the beta thinks it doesn't. So that sucked. We ended up just today putting another 1GB of ram in his mom's laptop to run it on a centrino duo and it wasn't too bad actually. And then I come and read this grrrr. The download for the Mac beta was grayed out for absolutely no reason with no explanation stated on the page and we were trying different browsers and re-running the system info scanner they made and all this crap and got nowhere with it. Also, they're fixing stupid things according to the patch logs when the basic party, game, invite, and chat system has severe and obvious problems for EVERYONE. When you can't even make a party and start a game approximately half the time, it's time to fix that and not randomly release an overdue mac version instead. They better get their crap together before the early June release date! They probably have to burn a permanent master version of this in a week or two! This is such a typical do nothing, patch nothing, PR-only marketing beta, NOT an actual beta test.

Re:Yay! (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041586)

This is such a typical do nothing, patch nothing, PR-only marketing beta, NOT an actual beta test.

Do you even understand what a beta is? It's a feature-complete build that has known issues. It's not a demo, nor a "You get to play for free" build. It's BETA. B-E-T-A. I.e., understood to be broken.

Sheesh. Kids today.

Re:Yay! (2, Interesting)

Councilor Hart (673770) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042104)

It's because of google.
Google keeps everything in beta for perpetuity, even though most of their services doesn't deserve that label. Google uses beta as an excuse to their users, not as an indicator of service status. The whining you replied to is the result.

Re:Yay! (1)

phooka.de (302970) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043022)

Do you even understand what a beta is? It's a feature-complete build that has known issues. It's not a demo, nor a "You get to play for free" build. It's BETA. B-E-T-A. I.e., understood to be broken.

Well, thank Google for that. BETA as in Gmail, that was in Beta for years while being both reliable and (compared to webmail in general) functionally complete.

So to the google generation, beta means free and no support, but finished never the less.

Sir, there is a bug in your signature. (1)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042540)

SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'

Dude, your SELECT is broken. I never get any search results at all. And when I search for "good" your server seems to crash.

I guess could file a helpful bug report... But heck, I'll rather just rant about it on Slashdot instead.

Re:Yay! (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 3 years ago | (#32044522)

Seriously, Parallels 3 is 2 generations old. What cheap drugs were you on that you though 3D gaming would work at all in a 2 generation old virtualization engine, when there have been constant articles on the continual progress that has been made in each generation even to make that marginally possible, and especially since you read /. and should have seen those articles!?!

Also, running 2 OS on 1GB of RAM? i don;t even recomend running EITHER separately on less than 2GB of RAM.

Finally, the specs alone indicated the Radeon you listed is not supported. The system requirements for Mac were not hard to find...

Also, it's a B-E-T-A, its fucking SUPPOSED to have issues. The Mac dev team runs mostly independent from the PC dev team and the BattleNet Dev team, it's not like they stopped one team to have all the devs shift over and work on code they don't know and don't support... These issues WILL be handled before the game launches (btw, its delayed until late 2010 at least, so they've got time) or Blizzard would be panned by the press and loose millions in failed sales.

Re:Yay! (2, Funny)

brkello (642429) | more than 3 years ago | (#32046846)

Dear sir, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please learn to shut your mouth, lest your ignorance be shown to the world.

Woohoo! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32041442)

Hell, it's about time.

Re:Yay! (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041484)

1. Apple MacBook Pro MB990LL/A 13.3-inch Laptop

2. Asus UL30A-X5 13.3-inch Laptop:

3. HP Pavilion DV6-2150US 15.6-inch Laptop:

4. Apple MacBook MC207LL/A 13.3-inch Laptop:

5. Toshiba Satellite L505-S5993 15.6-inch Laptop

6. Toshiba Satellite T135-S1310 13.3-inch Laptop

Yeah, cause according to the 2010 list of best selling laptops, there's 6 mac gamers out there...

Re:Yay! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32041792)

look at this apple fan boy, offended on the Internet

Re:Yay! (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042722)

Yeah, cause according to the 2010 list of best selling laptops, there's 6 mac gamers out there...

No, that was a typo.

It was supposed to be "lamers" not "gamers".

Re:Yay! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32042784)

But Windows has that market cornered.

13's mac have only core 2 and on board video at pr (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043034)

13's mac have only core 2 and on board video at prices where you can get i3 i5 with better video cards that have there own ram with other systems.

Re:Yay! (1)

cbreak (1575875) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042150)

Hey! You forgot to count me!

I know what I'll do this weekend anyway... :) I didn't play StarCraft that intensively, but somehow StarCraft II still managed to excite me. Although I do expect to get defeated repeatedly by people who had months of training in the beta already.

Re:Yay! (1)

gauauu (649169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043734)

Although I do expect to get defeated repeatedly by people who had months of training in the beta already.

The nice thing is, due to the way they have the "leagues" set up, you play 5 placement matches, then after that, you primarily compete against people of your own skill level. So if you suck, you'll also play against people that suck.

The idea being that you actually have fun NOT get defeated repeatedly. So far, from my experience, it works quite well.

Re:Yay! (1)

Bat Dude (1449125) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042458)

OK thats 3 Mac owners any one want to own up to the last 2. Now support for the Amstrad thats what im waiting for :(

Re:Yay! (1)

halowolf (692775) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042604)

Got my beta key today and hopped on to download the Mac client. I might have a Bootcamped Windows 7 on my other partition but if I get to choose Mac then Mac it is. While I know this is a joke, don't underestimate that part of the success of its franchises is that they do offer support for multiple platforms and make their products work on platforms that didn't even exist at the time that the game was created. ie Original Starcraft working under Mac OS X.

Re:Yay! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#32045338)

I'm pretty sure all 6 mac gamers will be very delighted that this happened.

Wow, imagine if they supported Linux... they'd almost double that number!

Re:Yay! (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#32047166)

No because Apple fail in making macs a viable gaming platform. Or well, guess one could simply conclude they just fail at large I suppose.

Linux ? (2, Insightful)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041008)

If there's a Mac version, does that mean a Linux version might ever come out ? Because that would be sweet... A few months after switching to Linux I still boot into XP from time to time so I don't feel like I wasted the cash on a decent graphics card. You'd think if they've already ported this to the Mac maybe a Linux client wouldn't be that hard. Then I could get rid of Windows forever ;p

Re:Linux ? (2, Insightful)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041032)

Not going to happen. Blizzard games have always been Mac + PC.

Re:Linux ? (2, Informative)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041074)

Not strictly.

StarCraft/BroodWar are supported through WINE with Blizzard's tolerance on BattleNet.

The NoCD patch (official, not a crack) for SC/BW (currently at 1.16.1) works OK in Linux.

http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=21149&rhtml=true [blizzard.com]

Of course, it there were to be an "official" native release of SCII for Linux, I would probably drop my current boycott of the title for lack of LAN play.

Re:Linux ? (1)

gauauu (649169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043764)

StarCraft/BroodWar are supported through WINE with Blizzard's tolerance on BattleNet.

Really? Because the wineHQ database [winehq.org] and my personal experience would disagree...the game plays fine in single-player mode on wine, but battle.net doesn't work. I had better luck installing a windows 98 vm and running it in that. Of course, you have to have a windows 98 license laying around, but once I did that, it worked great for me.

Re:Linux ? (1)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041298)

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

Linux as a desktop operating system is growing in popularity every day, and has come a long way since Blizzard's last game release.

Re:Linux ? (2, Insightful)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041338)

Maybe so, but GP seemed to think that a mac client implied a possible Linux client, whereas a mac client is just business as usual for Blizzard.

Re:Linux ? (1)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042984)

If they made a mac client, it means they've either written it in or ported it to opengl. According to wikipedia, they've ported it [wikipedia.org] . The idea is that most of the work necessary to make a linux client is the porting to opengl and that has already been done to make the mac client. I run macs, linux and windows (for games and the odd software that I can't get for any other platform). Since the macs are work machines, I probably won't buy a mac version, but I'd happily fork out the dough for a linux version since the only native linux games I spent any time on were penny arcade's one, neverwinter nights (not counting wine), and a little world of goo.

Re:Linux ? (1)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 3 years ago | (#32044076)

Current the SC2 beta has a Gold rating on the Wine AppDB [winehq.org] . It requires a custom compile with a patch, and a little config hacking, to work. I followed these instructions myself borrowing a friend's account, and could play the game. However, compared to my Windows XP install on the same PC, performance is horrid on Linux via Wine.

I'm hoping OpenGL support means better Wine performance. I'm sure with such a large community, Linux gamers will be able to play this game one way or another.

Re:Linux ? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042812)

Linux as a desktop operating system is growing in popularity every day

We're at, what, 1% now? And before you get all "Yahbut, you could get 100% of 1% of the market!!!!1!!", that's only significant if you're churning out 2D RPGs from your garage and every sale counts. It's a rounding error to Blizzard, especially as many Linux users will have XP partitions as well.

Re:Linux ? (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041054)

If Blizzard's policy remains, Linux will simply be an unsupported platform. You can use wine to emulate^H^H^H^H^Hrun it, and even play in rated games online (without risk of getting banned for using an unacceptable OS), but if you break it you keep both pieces.

Re:Linux ? (1)

Hikaru79 (832891) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041060)

Not at all. Blizzard has been supporting Mac since SC1 over 10 years ago. They've never supported Linux. So their current support for Macs says absolutely nothing about future plans regarding Linux :( However, their games also have a long long history of running great under Wine.

Re:Linux ? (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041130)

I've found that for pretty much any program with a Mac version, the Windows version works perfectly in Wine. I'm guessing it's a side effect of not being able to make Windows-specific assumptions.

Re:Linux ? (1)

Zarel (900479) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042664)

I've found that for pretty much any program with a Mac version, the Windows version works perfectly in Wine. I'm guessing it's a side effect of not being able to make Windows-specific assumptions.

Keep in mind that many Mac games are simply the Windows version bundled with a Wine fork [transgaming.com] , so it may be less a matter of making Windows-specific assumptions and more a matter of intentionally coding for Wine support.

Re:Linux ? (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042950)

Actually, Blizzard has a long history of supporting OpenGL, and if I recall correctly, they are on the board (Kronos Group) http://www.khronos.org/about/ [khronos.org]

It's not necessarily because the games are Wine friendly, but because they use open standards to ensure Mac compatibility. Wine compatibility is more the end result of using open standards, not the root cause. DX10 is a nice to have on Blizzards newest games, but certainly not a requirement, and they went with Havok physics (from Intel), rather than Physx (owned by nVidia). This gives them the benefit of working on both ATI and nVidia cards, and again better compatibility.

Re:Linux ? (1)

Zarel (900479) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043042)

Korin wasn't talking about Blizzard, and neither was I. Blizzard's games' Wine compatibility may be caused by their use of open standards, but I was speculating that most [other] Win+Mac games' Wine compatibility could stem from their usage of Transgaming's Cider engine.

Re:Linux ? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32046084)

I was speculating that most [other] Win+Mac games' Wine compatibility could stem from their usage of Transgaming's Cider engine.

Certainly there are a fair number of games that make use of it, but I don't think it would be the majority. For one, Cider has only been in use for about 3-4 years, whereas Mac games have been increasing in number for much longer than that. It is sort of a double edged sword in the Mac market, making it easier for some companies to make cross platform games, but at the same time moving some franchises that used to do proper ports to less functional, poorer performing (quick and dirty) ports that encourage the use of Windows specific technologies and discourage the use of open standard alternatives. An example would be the Sims, which released every version for Mac and PC at the same time, with native ports, until the most recent version which they just did a Cider-based port.

Re:Linux ? (1)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | more than 3 years ago | (#32047130)

Unfortunately its gotten popular enough that I've become skeptical whenever I hear of a new "mac port" these days. I do feel its not too far off to say that the majority of big budget games in the past 2-3 years have used Cider. I have no facts to back up this claim of course, its just what I've experienced. Warhammer Online, EVE Online, Dragon Age, Spore, Call of Duty, Command and Conquer, and City of Heroes, would be a few. Blizzard seems to be one of the last companies that still develops natively for Mac, but this is its first new release in what, seven years? EA certainly does not release natively. I heard Bioshock was actually native, but it came out years too late. Unfortunately the current state of Mac gaming seems to be that if you want it in a reasonable time frame, it'll be using Cider.

Re:Linux ? (2, Informative)

tirefire (724526) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041226)

Not at all. Blizzard has been supporting Mac since SC1 over 10 years ago.

Heck, it's been longer than that. The earliest title Bliz made for the Mac (that I know of) is Blackthorne (1994). And the earliest one that anyone cares about (Orcs and Humans) was still all the way back in '96.

Mac OS != Mac OS X (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042332)

Not at all. Blizzard has been supporting Mac since SC1 over 10 years ago.

Except that, over 10 years ago, Mac OS X hasn't even been anounced. The official OS for Macs was System 8 back then. i.e.: something that doesn't even remotely look like anything else on the market. So the Mac-port was targetting System 8 and as such was a completely separate port. Meaning that making a Linux port would have required even one more separate port. Which would have been worth it.

Today, the official Mac OS is Snow Leopard. An OS which heavily draws from its BSD Unix roots. Most of the API aren't weird stuff like System 8's (like QuickDraw or whatever was the Apple blessed API for graphics) but rather industry standards (like OpenGL).
So if StarCraft II has been ported to Mac OS X, that means its engine has been rewritten to support OpenGL and similar modern APIs. And so a theoretical Linux port wouldn't require such a big rewrite as for StarCraft 1.

The only questions are :

- Doesn't this port rely too heavily on Mac-only technologies ? (extensive use of Objective-C, App-Kit, etc.)
That shouldn't be the case. If anything, thanks to modern consoles, the current market is getting even more multi-platform, and it would make sense for Blizzard to make their codebase mostly rely on industry standard (OpenGL, OpenAL, etc.) making it more easy to port not only to Mac OS, but also to other consoles (anything else appart from the X-Box uses OpenGL for graphics).

- Will they spend the extra effort to do a specific Linux port ?
On one hand they might consider the market too small to be worth considering, and the culture of diversity among Linux distribution make it hard to target (although it makes them more resistant to viruses too)
On the other hand, a game doesn't require that much API beyond a few basics (OpenGL, OpenAL, SDL and basic posix IO) so diversity should be a lower problem than other software cases.
A Linux port is an excellent exercise in portability (that's why id are doing it. If it runs on Windows, Mac & Linux it can trivially be ported to anything else in the universe).
Also Linux is getting quite popular in the netbook market (and a quick round of StarCraft 2 would be an excellent time killer while commuting. And if the longevity of StarCraft 1 is any indicator, by SCII's mid-life probably even wrist watches will have enough computing power to play it).

Re:Mac OS != Mac OS X (1)

MarkkuJ (1801278) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042414)

Starcraft is working fine on my Snow Leopard. Just log into battle.net, create account and import your Starcraft key and you can download the game, and no need for CD in your drive, kudos to Blizzard. So whether it was done on System 8 or not either Blizzard was successfull in creating something that works or Apple was able to make compatible versions of it's OS.

Re:Mac OS != Mac OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32043200)

I'm guessing you weren't around in the pre-OS X Mac gaming days. A lot of the games that ran on 8.5 and 9 used OpenGL, as Apple had provided official support for it at the OS level back then. Sure, there were some that used QuickDraw and OpenSprockets and whatnot. But the ones that made the transition to OS X (which is all of the Blizzard titles from that era) made use of OpenGL.

Re:Mac OS != Mac OS X (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043256)

...making it more easy to port not only to Mac OS, but also to other consoles (anything else appart from the X-Box uses OpenGL for graphics).

The N64 version of Starcraft notwithstanding, I wouldn't hold your breath here. SC is not exactly a game that's amenable to the console, especially since none of them let you use mouse/keyboard in-game. I'd be quite surprised if we see console port of SC2.

Your other arguments are decent, but I don't think that one would have been much more than a "eh, it wouldn't hurt at least."

Have you been following the consoles lately ? (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#32046074)

I wouldn't hold your breath here. SC is not exactly a game that's amenable to the console, especially since none of them let you use mouse/keyboard in-game.

Well, probably you haven't been following the news in console kingdom lately, but pointing inputs are all the rage since Nintendo introduced them as a standard feature with the DS's touch screen and the Wiimote (prior they where specially purpose device bought separately)

To the point that currently, point'n'click adventure games see a lot of DS and Wii ports.

Playing StarCraft with a wiimote instead of a mouse doesn't sound that much weird. (And the console has USB ports if you really need the real stuff).

Sony seems also to be experimenting with motion-based inputs for the playstations (not withstanding the fact that the PS3 has standard USB ports), so perhaps a StarCraft II on PS3 could be doable with standard motion-controls (instead of a 3rd party keyboard and mouse plugged into USB).

XBox 360 has an USB port, and apparently it's used for keyboard and mouse in FPS. Though their future motion based input seems to be more webcam based and thus less useful for a strategy game.

And probably, once the hardware catches up, future touch-screen enabled hand-held could very well play strategy games.

BTW:
Keyboard have been available at least since Sega Mark-III and similar generation of old console/home computer hybrids.
Mouses do exist at least since MegaDrive and SNES.

DreamCast extensively supported mouse and keyboard in games (Quake III, Half-life, Phantasy star online, ...), and in fact in some regions where light guns were banned, mouse was the only decent input alternative (I have such a version of Confidential Mission).

And light guns (at least the modern ones since 16bits machines) themselves are just another form of pointing device, although with a rather curious shape.

Also the X-Box 1 controller uses standard USB protocole over a non-standard compliant connector, and thus could in theory use a keyboard and a mouse if the software did support it. Sadly only homebrew support it, as Microsoft never released an official XBox Mouse/Keyboard.

Re:Mac OS != Mac OS X (1)

bsdaemonaut (1482047) | more than 3 years ago | (#32047242)

I do believe Mac OS 8/9 supported OpenGL. Furthermore, Quickdraw is still part of OSX. Yes, its deprecated, but its still there. Some software and well used graphics libraries, such as the current stable version of SDL, still use it.

Re:Linux ? (1)

jaryd (1702090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041362)

Following that logic then perhaps there will be a NetBSD version too. Finally an excuse to plug a keyboard into my toaster!

Re:Linux ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32042040)

No.

Sent from my iPhone

Re:Linux ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32042848)

Sent from my iPhone

No one cares.

Re:Linux ? (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043444)

It's all pretty convoluted to me. According to the wiki [wikipedia.org] , apparently the Windows version is fully DX10 supported whereas the Mac version uses OpenGL. I'm sure there are good reasons why, but doesn't it make more sense to just use the same OpenGL for both? Less to develop and easier to port between other OSes IMO

Re:Linux ? (1)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043622)

Blizzard has always supported apple. It has never, ever supported linux, not even a little. I think it is safe to assume this will be true for the coming years as well. Particulary since it's easy enough to dual boot into windows.

requirements? (0, Offtopic)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041068)

anyone know if a macbook would be able to run it, however shittily?

Re:requirements? (4, Informative)

radicalskeptic (644346) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041076)

You know, a 15 second Google search would have turned up the results: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=24630623195&sid=5000 [battle.net]

Re:requirements? (3)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041208)

thank you, I tried that search yesterday and got no useful results.

Re:requirements? (3)

radicalskeptic (644346) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041282)

And I'm sorry for my rude reply; I was out of line.

Re:requirements? (2)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041346)

its all good, I was just happy to finally have the info I needed. I'm glad I can play the beta now :)

Re:requirements? (4, Funny)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041416)

Gosh, you two are so cute :)

First fight and reconciliation right here on /.

Re:requirements? (0, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#32045486)

You can point and laugh if you like, but Slashdot really is the home of people who can never possibly be wrong no matter how much solid evidence has been provided.

This place would be so much nicer if we could get a little more humility like those two showed. Instead most of the comments are posed to earn moderations. We could all (especially me) stand to be a little classier.

Re:requirements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32045596)

15 seconds?!? Google found that for me in only 0.18 seconds!

I bought everything they did, yet... (0, Offtopic)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041120)

I still have my original "Orcs and Humans," in fact. And yet, not only did I not get in on the beta, but no one I know did either (which means, they couldn't invite me or whatnot).

Bah.

Re:I bought everything they did, yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32041146)

But had you pre-ordered it from Gamestop like the rest of us, you too would have been given a code.

Re:I bought everything they did, yet... (1)

gauauu (649169) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043812)

Like the AC that also replied to you said, Amazon and GameStop had (may still have?) promotions where they give you a beta key if you preorder the game. That's how a lot of us got in.

It should be noted... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32041134)

It should be noted that the map editor is not yet available in the Mac beta.

Performance Issues (2, Informative)

BoiledNotScrambled (1636925) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041176)

It runs worse in OSX than Windows 7 on my Macbook pro. I'm hoping the final release runs better.

Re:Performance Issues (1)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041464)

I found it that it runs about the same for me. What I found interesting is that running it in a window makes it unbearable on windows 7, but on OSX it runs great on a window.

Re:Performance Issues (1)

xonial (1207678) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043462)

I've found that it runs well 98% (warning: very small sample size...) of the time in OS X -- every now and again it chokes for a second or two. Frustrating at game load when you're trying to get a good start going. No such hiccups in XP. That said, I have newfound respect for blizzard: I set up the 'grid' hotkey config, fully expecting to have to switch from Dvorak to QWERTY, but no! It autodetects the Dvorak layout and adjusts the grid hotkeys accordingly. Pretty badass.

In other news... (3, Funny)

tenco (773732) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041480)

...Steve Jobs announced that the final product will be banned from the Apple Experience (TM) due to war being a violent business. "If you want your children to wage cruel bloody virtual war, buy a PC!". He also pointed out that Kerrigan is depicted completely naked in any promotional material he encountered.

hi (-1, Troll)

alinekhalaf (1801136) | more than 3 years ago | (#32041596)

A few months after switching to Linux I still boot into XP from time to time so I don't feel like I wasted the cash on a decent graphics card. You'd think if they've already ported this to the Mac maybe a Linux client wouldn't be that hard. Holidays in Croatia [welcome-to-croatia.com]

Fuck your spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32041622)

Mod parent troll and prepare to DDos his shitty website.

Still not buying it. (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042454)

No LAN play and the way the company has acted over the years means I won't be buying this even though I desperately want to play it.

Let me point out something important - no LAN play means that you are dealing with a lighter form of the same DRM that Ubisoft is using. It starts with "no LAN play" and then goes to "Must always be connected to Battlenet." and ends with "My game won't play because I can't authenticate every 10 minutes."

Stand up and put your money where your mouth is or these companies will walk all over you.

Re:Still not buying it. (3, Interesting)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042682)

Here is the difference between what Ubisoft and Blizzard are doing.

Ubisoft is putting this stupid "connected all the time" stuff in Single-Player Games. There's no Multi I know of in AC2. So it's somewhere that server connections are completely inappropriate. It's just a complete waste to include it.

Starcraft II is meant to be Multi-Player, that is what the primary focus has always been, its what the Beta is testing (exclusively, no campaign testing in the Beta). Sure there is going to be a campaign, and you might even play through it more than once, but the many hours most people are going to burn on this is going to be Multi.

So I for one will be buying the game, because just about the only thing I care about at all IS Multi-Player and I don't have people local to play on a LAN either. The game could come with absolutely no single player features at all and I would still be buying it. If the game did not come with Multi-Player I would need to seriously reconsider if it was worth buying. The "must be connected to battle.net" thing is redundant to me, I'm going to be there anyway.

Re:Still not buying it. (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32042754)

Just because you don't want LAN play doesn't mean others don't want it. And just because you're okay with being treated like a criminal behind the scenes doesn't mean everyone else is. It doesn't matter if the stuff is in a single player or multiplayer game the results are the same.


You don't get to play the game unless the company in questions ALLOWS you to use what YOU ALREADY HAVE PAID FOR AND OWN.


The longer people let companies get away with putting in DRM like this the more restrictive it will get. Until you have...rentalware.

Do you really want rentalware?

Re:Still not buying it. (1)

Loomismeister (1589505) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043020)

Yes I do, I'll buy two copies even because i don't give a shit about DRM or not. I buy the game cause its fun.

BTW you don't need an active internet connection to play single player at all according to Dustin Browder. There is one internet validation of your game as you install it, and other than that you don't ever have to connect to the internet to play single player.

You need internet to play multiplayer, which makes sense. The only thing they've disallowed is people playing a private LAN in the middle of nowhere where no internet connection can be had. You can still have LAN parties with your friends and play LAN custom games through the battle.net interface.

Admit it, you're rage is unfounded and has no basis in reality.

Re:Still not buying it. (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043602)

Yes I do, I'll buy two copies even because i don't give a shit about DRM or not.

Why buy two copies of the same game? That seems pretty silly to m...

I buy the game cause its fun.

Oh I see. You enjoy spending money. In that case, you are really going to love the state of games in 2-3 years when you get to buy it for full retail (just the license of course, you won't actually own anything) and then get to pay a monthly "server access and maintenance fee" to continue to play your DRM crippled games.

On a more serious and less sarcastic note, requiring constant internet connection for LAN play is ridiculous, and will only punish honest players that don't circumvent DRM. Every LAN party I've ever been to has been in a basement/gym/whatever that is big enough to allow a bunch of people to set up their stations, and lacked the ability to provide an internet connection to each station.

If I pay full retail for a game, I expect to be able to use the product in the way that I see fit. I absolutely should not be required to maintain a connection to their servers to continually validate myself. Sure the cost and inconvenience to me is minimal, but it is a short step down a very slippery slope. And a step that consumers have the ability to stop developers from taking.

Re:Still not buying it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32045830)

Explain to me how consumers have the ability to stop the developers from taking steps down that slope. Other than not buy this game, which people who want to will regardless of this DRM, what can be done? Why would Activision care? Seems to me they're rolling in the dough, they don't care what the user voices his opinion over - they care about what the user buys. People will still buy this game.

Re:Still not buying it. (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 3 years ago | (#32047156)

I know, crazy that they expect you to play the online portion of their game online. How dare they! Next thing you know they will make you click on an icon to start their game and then require you to create a user name and password so they can track your abilities and match you with others of the same ability. OMG, can someone say big brother?

Re:Still not buying it. (1)

TheNumberless (650099) | more than 3 years ago | (#32044804)

Just because you don't want LAN play doesn't mean others don't want it.

So I'll buy it, and they won't. I'm not about to boycott a product I want because it doesn't have a feature I don't want.

The longer people let companies get away with putting in DRM like this the more restrictive it will get. Until you have...rentalware.

When a product comes out that doesn't let me do what I want, I'll refuse to buy it. Not before. Slippery slope arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me.

Do you really want rentalware?

Do you really think you know what I want better than I do? Voting with your wallet means not buying a product you don't support. It doesn't mean trying to force other people to conform to your wishes.

Re:Still not buying it. (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 3 years ago | (#32047094)

So don't buy it. And do us a favor, and don't read about it. If you already know you aren't going to get it, why post in every thread about it? Yeah, we know you feel self righteous because your principles are so much higher than everyone else. We disagree...and the sutff Blizzard is doing isn't a big deal. I don't feel like a criminal. I feel excited to continue a story I loved over 10 years ago.

Clearly games aren't important to you. It is just espousing Slashdot group-think to gain karma or have like minded people telling you how right you are.

Re:Still not buying it. (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 3 years ago | (#32047048)

I'm sorry, but you are full of crap.

The stuff Blizzard did in the past was completely reasonable if you look at the reality of the situation rather than the polarized slashdot group-think that is shoved down your throat. And even if you count that, how old is Starcraft? Right...and they are still supporting it today. So your analogy with Ubisoft fails in so many ways.

No, not having LAN play isn't a lighter version of that DRM, and no, it does not lead to always be connected. You sound like a stupid gun nut complaining that if the government bans the right for civilians to own rocket launchers its next move will be to ban all knives.

Blizzard has worked very hard to produce solid games that are always polished better than any other game. You can now upload keys from your old games to the Battle.net website and always have access to download and play your games on any computer. They do more than any other game company to earn our dollars and you are too stupid to realize it because of it lacking a feature that you probably won't even notice isn't there.

You guys complain about everything. Maybe you are too old for gaming now and should just sit on your front porch drinking beer with your buddies and whine about kids these days.

Now apple needs a better desktop system to play it (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043018)

Now apple needs a better desktop system to play it.

$1200 get's you a AIO with core 2 laptop cpu and 9400m on board video.

$1500 to go up to ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics with 256MB

$600 - $800 for a mini with a slower laptop cpu less ram at $600 and the same 9400m on board video.

or $2500 for mac pro with a weak base video card and less ram then the imac. NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB at $2500?? add $200 for 4870 512MB?? makeing it a $350 video card?

We need a real desktop with a desktop cpu and mid-range or better video card. AT $800 - $1500.

Re:Now apple needs a better desktop system to play (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#32043548)

What you want is a PC (or a Hackintosh). There's no way Apple is going to release a reasonably priced "game system".

Re:Now apple needs a better desktop system to play (1)

Sandbags (964742) | more than 3 years ago | (#32044402)

Actually, Apple is highly focused on gaming, as well as video editing, on their entire line. Blizzard has comitted to releasing all future games for both Mac and PC (simultaneously when possible). getting dedicated GPUs in all Mac desktop systems should happen with the next release when i5 becomes the default processor across the entire line (excluding the Mini, which should at least get the 9600M anyway assuming they keep that model, rumor is they are).

The most basic mac in each line likely won't include these options, but i see the new iMac being offered both with and without GPU as all the iMacs were 2 generations ago (no more stock-only option on the base model).

Oh look, a Starcraft II story... (1)

RepelHistory (1082491) | more than 3 years ago | (#32044126)

...Cue hordes of bitter posts bitching about how they won't play the game because it doesn't support LAN, without regard to how good or bad the game actually is.

Re:Oh look, a Starcraft II story... (1)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32044824)

It really should support LAN play. But I preordered it anyway because Blizzard is one of the last good game studios around.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...