[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

2. Apple buys Blizzard's Havok.

---

Havok isn't Blizzard's to sell. They've just bought a license for both PC and Mac game development from Havok.

Quote:

---

3. Apple licenses it for free to Mac developers.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

There you are. Overnight all games are also on the Mac!

---

No. Again, engineering a Mac version of Havok has never been the issue here -- getting Mac developers to pay for it has been the issue; they simply haven't been able to afford it.

[Peter Cohen]

Quote:

---

Has not an early version of Havok been on the mac already in Adobe's (macromedia) director's 3d engine?

---

Yes, and as someone else has pointed out, Havok 1.x is also used in Second Life, a virtual world game from Linden Labs. Both are very, very primitive compared to the Havok we're talking about here.

[leroybrown]

Quote:

---

I've been giving ole Steve a break for 11 years, which is how long I've been a Mac gamer.

---

Steve hasn't been there for 11 years... he came back in 1997 - that's less than 10 years.
Remember, Apple released game sprockets in the 7.5 days, and they were around throughout the whole rest of the days of classic. So at some point, there was actual bone fide support for game developers at Apple.
As far as Apple giving a physics engine away to developers - there are already free physics engines . Do people use them? Sure, but for some reason, some companies prefer to pay for their physics engines.

[HumanJHawkins]

Quote:

---

What will this announcement mean for the future of Mac gaming?

---

I don't want to get too overly optimistic, but you missed one fact of development economics with this article... All of the costs of developing something like this are upfront. So while it makes sense for Havok to require their normal high cost to bring this to the Mac. But, having ported it over, it would make more sense to reduce the cost over time.
In other words, the supply has gone from zero to infinite. Whereas the demand has stayed the same. So, it would make a lot more sense to license it to several developers for $500,000 instead of licensing it to only one (Blizzard) for $1,000,000.

[jedi228]

Quote:

---

So, it would make a lot more sense to license it to several developers for $500,000 instead of licensing it to only one (Blizzard) for $1,000,000.

---

It makes sense to do this if you are a Mac guy who really wants it, but it doesn't fit into Havoc's overall plan to have a consistent pricing policy.
Apple has a consistent pricing policy on iTunes music. It's all $0.99 cents even for older and/or less desirable music. The advantages of consistent pricing outweigh the small additional profit of breaking the rules once in a while.
Havoc has the right to make their own policy choices even though Mac guys hate it.
This is why I suggested that Apple purchase Havoc or create their own. Then Apple can set the policy.

[Nobody]

Quote:

---

Sure you get the games. Now how do you proposition such endeavor as profitable to your board of directors and stockholders. Just having it is not good enough, you need to be able to sell, and sell a lot so that you make the INVESTMENT back.

---

If they make the Mac as good gaming platform just as Windows is, Apple will sell many more Macs. Many, many more. There is the revenue. Besides, if Apple reaches a critical threshold on the world market share (say 10%), that can be unstoppable, increasing year by year and eventually beating Windows itslf. The main problem of the Mac now is its tiny market share. Overcome that and you will get the computing world upside down for Apple.

[HumanJHawkins]

Quote:

---

how likely is HALO 2 to reach the Fruit company's shores, not very...

---

You guys need to realize that much of this is out of Apple's hands... Halo and Halo 2 are perfect examples... Microsoft bought these specifically to keep them off of other platforms. The original intent was to make sure that the XBox had a killer game that Sony Playstations didn't have. But clearly even if Sony was the target, they aren't going to turn around and reverse the reasoning for Apple.
In fact, Microsoft doesn't even let many of it's OWN games run on the PC (especially if talking about concurrent releases) even when they are already coded to, because they see a long term stratagy benefit in making the XBox line necessary for gamers.

[Nobody]

So, Apple buys it from the owner and gives it for free to developers. Many more Macs are sold as gaming machines and there comes the revenue. Easy!

[HumanJHawkins]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, it would make a lot more sense to license it to several developers for $500,000 instead of licensing it to only one (Blizzard) for $1,000,000.

---

<CUT>The advantages of consistent pricing outweigh the small additional profit of breaking the rules once in a while.<CUT>

---

No offense intended, but I am glad you are not running my company... There is one thing all really profitable businesses have in common: When they see money available, they find a way to take it.
And, doing anything today that passes up a good opportunity, just because you did it that way yesterday, is the surest way to become less successful than you could have been.
About your Apple example, do you really think that Apple wouldn't break it's 99 cent music policy if Pepsi came along and offered to buy 100,000 songs at a lower but still profitable rate? Oh wait... My bad. They already did this. I'll try to think of a different question.

[scfischer]

I'm wondering if this will be incorporated into the long awaited much anticipated Diablo 3. Or is that to far along the development pipeline that it's foundations were laid long before the Havok licensing agreement? I know that D3 has been in development for I think 4 years or so (rumored), but I also heard a rumor that most of the project was scrapped last year and started over. Perhaps with the Havok engine?

[bastion]

Quote:

---

I've been giving ole Steve a break for 11 years, which is how long I've been a Mac gamer. ...

---

You do realize, I hope, that 11 years ago was smack in the middle of a several-year stretch of time where "ole Steve" had absolutely no business relationship with Apple. I know it's quite fashionable to make Steve Jobs the scapegoat for everything any given person sees as wrong with Apple, the Mac or the Mac market but it's rarely realistic and generally a distraction from issues that might actually be correctable.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Games not-withstanding. Apple needs to come out with CorePhysics. Yes, game developers can use the tools, but physics do not have to be limited to Games. A built-in set of physics tools could help in titles such as Maya, for still image explosions in Photoshop, for iMovie and FCP effects, and more.

---

How many cross-platform applications are using CoreImage?
Apple has a long history of awesome proprietary APIs that few people use.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

World of Warcraft maker Blizzard Entertainment will license the Havok 4.0 physics engine for use in new Mac games. What will this announcement mean for the future of Mac gaming? <a href="http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/gameroom/2006/09/havok/index.php">[more]</a>

---

I think Blizzard is working hard on a 7th gen console game.

[Immeral]

Oh come on Peter, you know what he meant! I think the buy Blizzard's license was just a slip of the tongue. He meant buy Havok the company and then license out the physics engine for free to Mac developers. I think that is a very good idea!