Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Gaming, Odds and ends
Gaming-specific CrossOver coming soon
MacWindows reports that CrossOver (which was already doing pretty well with Windows games inside OS X) is planning to release a gaming-optimized version of their virtualization software. It'll be called CrossOver Gaming, and while we're not actually given details of how it's going to be "optimized" for games, we are told that it will be compatible with more Windows games than ever before.Additionally, the new version will actually be a subscription model-- instead of just buying the software, you'll pay $5 a month (presumably for quick updates on brand new games). Other than that, we're not quite sure what advantage CrossOver's system will have over, say, running games in Windows via Boot Camp (seems to me that if you have the hardware to run Windows games, you have the hardware to run Windows and games at the same time), but we'll have to see-- CrossOver says the new Gaming version is due sometime later this year.
[Via IMG]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
LD said 5:16PM on 1-08-2008
Well, one advantage is that you don't need a Windows license.
Another is that I imagine the 3D performance will be better (hopefully) than current virtualization methods. This would be something along the lines of Cedega. Also cuts out the middle man with Cider.
Another is that you don't have to boot Windows. You're on a Mac, why would you want to reboot to play a game? Why not simply play it?
Reply
Joe said 5:20PM on 1-08-2008
Terrible logo and graphic, and a subscription model to play games you pay for outside of using that software? ha! same reason i won't get games on my sprint phone. they're all subscription based and that sucks
Reply
helfire said 5:20PM on 1-08-2008
Crossover != virtualization
Never heard of a gameing optimized version of wine? let alone for $5/mo!?@ wow...
Cedega http://www.transgaming.com/
Reply
trainwrecka said 5:24PM on 1-08-2008
i've been using crossover for about a month to run Magic Online (yes that dorky card game from the 90's). it is a bit sluggish even with 3GB of RAM. that being said, Magic Online is not a program it was meant to work with (yet).
if you are a true gamer what is $5? :-)
Reply
Richard said 6:35PM on 1-08-2008
This will only hurt the argument for native games on the Mac. Projects like these a little short-sighted.
Reply
thethirdmoose said 6:56PM on 1-08-2008
These run like native games
Richard said 7:50PM on 1-08-2008
But they're NOT native games and will only serve to further solidify the status quo where game developers feel that developing titles for the Mac is a waste of time, thus feeding the perceived need for things like this.
It's a self-feeding cycle.
Bob S. said 10:29PM on 1-08-2008
You're missing the point: The concept of "native" is quickly becoming obsolete.
Sam Katz said 12:45PM on 1-09-2008
it will help. crossover support makes games easy to port.
rnsn said 7:18PM on 1-08-2008
If the subscription thing they're talking about is like the one Cedega uses, it's for continual updates to the software. With Cedega at least, you by no means had to keep paying month by month, but if you wanted to play newer games then they ran better with the latest version.
Reply
smoke_tetsu said 9:31PM on 1-08-2008
"seems to me that if you have the hardware to run Windows games, you have the hardware to run Windows and games at the same time" I wouldn't bet on it. I mean games are some of the most demanding software there is for a computer.
I think software like this is good for those games you know will never ever come to the Mac. Like say, Half-Life 2. Another thing is sometimes when games do come out for the Mac not all the same mods work with the game as they do with the PC version. Like with Doom 3 certain mods like last man standing have to be compiled for the Mac.
Aspyr talked about how they still believe that native ports still have their advantage over a WINE setup (like this and cider)... and that they can still remain competitive. I hope they are right.
Reply
Wilder K. Wight said 12:47AM on 1-09-2008
So...
$5 a month until they scrap their project, or I can just use Bootcamp for free?
Yes, I had to pay for Windows XP, but I already did that and thus it's not coming out of my wallet every month. Why would I pay a subscription fee to do something I can already do?
Oh, yes. It's a TINY bit more convenient than using BootChamp to go over to my BootCamp partition. I don't have to wait for the reboot.
However, I can deal with the small delay of reboot if it means I keep an extra $5 every month for as long as I own a Mac.
Useless in it's current form. Subscription model sucks. Good luck getting people to stick with it.
Reply
ogvor said 1:26AM on 1-09-2008
I may try this. My Bootcamp partition was only the 32GB for Fat32 or what ever so that I could edit the drive from within OSX on my MacBook Pro. With Teamfortress 2, Portal, Company of Heroes, Tiran Quest, and a few others (plus I would like to install Command and Conquer 3), Im having to uninstall one hame just to install another. Hopefully this works and I can just keep all my hard drive on the Mac partition.
Reply
ZeroCorpse said 1:09PM on 1-09-2008
Simple solution:
Use Windows to convert from FAT32 to NTFS.
Use WinClone to back up your Windows partition.
Use BootCamp Assistant to delete your Windows partition.
Use BootCamp Assistant to make a new, bigger NTFS partition.
Use WinClone to restore your Windows backup to the new, bigger partition.
Enjoy. No cost to you.
ZeroCorpse said 1:09PM on 1-09-2008
Simple solution:
Use Windows to convert from FAT32 to NTFS.
Use WinClone to back up your Windows partition.
Use BootCamp Assistant to delete your Windows partition.
Use BootCamp Assistant to make a new, bigger NTFS partition.
Use WinClone to restore your Windows backup to the new, bigger partition.
Enjoy. No cost to you.
ogvor said 1:50PM on 1-09-2008
Yes, that would be useful except the reason I used FAT32 was because it allowed me to easily move files between the partions. Would I still be able to do that in NTFS?
Oneiroi said 8:38AM on 1-09-2008
I took the plunge, bought orange box to play team fortress, tried the crossover demo...and it never played the game right... I'd open the game and be staring at the ceiling unable to move.
I couldn't find any real forums or anyone talking about how to fix it so I gave up. I probably could have tried calling them or something but wasn't really worth it.
Reply
TC said 11:17AM on 1-09-2008
Like the others said, here are the main reasons that Crossover is good to play Half Life 2 for me:
- Dont need to install Windows
- Dont need to keep Windows up to date with patches
- Dont need to reboot every time I want a game
- Doesnt waste as much hard drive space
The last one is a big one for me. I use OS X most of the time, so I couldnt make my bootcamp partition very big. With Windows on there, the needed apps, and then the games, its now full. I now need to uninstall a game if I want a new one, or backup everything, remake the partition and reinstall.
If I was using Crossover for all Win games then I wouldnt need a seperate Windows partition.
The downsides are:
- At the moment there are not many games supported (will change with Crossover Games)
- Slight performance hit, but not enough to stop playing.
Reply
MfS said 2:09PM on 1-09-2008
I didn't click through to RTFA, but will something like this CrossOver allow PC games like BF2142 and Call of Duty 4 / others like it to be played on a MacBook (Nov. '07)? Is their technology something that "bypasses" the "requirements" of PC games to be played on a Mac?
Reply
Dylan McNamee said 6:36PM on 1-09-2008
This is funny: back in the day, you'd hear "Mac's are okay, but if you need to get WORK done, you need a PC." Now it's reversed. I tired of trying to run PC games on my mac (VMWare, Parallels, bootcamp), so I bought a PC. Yes, windows is "somewhat unpleasant," but all I'm doing is launching games (Portal & Crysis both ROCK), so I don't feel too sullied. Plus, I get the same video card (nVidia 8800) that I'd need a >$2K Mac machine to run.
Reply