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!

Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs?

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the need-a-little-time-in-boot-camp dept.


An anonymous reader writes "CNET.com.au is forecasting Windows gamers will be flocking to Intel-based Apples, saying many 'have been looking for an excuse to switch to Macs.' The article says: 'Of course, games enthusiasts who like to customise their systems and upgrade their hardware (such as graphics cards) at the drop of a hat may still prefer the tinkering freedom a PC allows. But then there are the legions of more casual gamers who only upgrade every several years or so -- as long as they can play what's available at their local games shop, I'm sure they won't be fussed that they're not running off the latest gear from ATI or NVIDIA.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


All that remains... (1)

kunwon1 (795332) | about 8 years ago | (#15076153)

Is for someone to tell me whether or not you can run Oblivion [elderscrolls.com] on Mac hardware.

Re:All that remains... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076238)

You, sir, are an idiot.

If you do end up being stupid enough to waste money on one of these overpriced POS Intel machines from Apple, make sure you come back so we can all laugh at you.

Re:All that remains... (1)

humajime (952879) | about 8 years ago | (#15076316)

Yes, quite well too.

Re:All that remains... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 8 years ago | (#15076620)

Oh man, Oblivion on a Mac. Think of how far Mac users have come in just a year. From "God, I hope they port it someday" to "Yeah, we can play all those games too" in such a short time.


Re:All that remains... (1)

Zediker (885207) | about 8 years ago | (#15076684)

But you cant really call it a Mac... Your still booting into XP on an intel x86 processor... The only thing that really makes it a Mac is the fact you bought it from apple and there is OSX on it in another partition...

Re:All that remains... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 8 years ago | (#15076773)

Depends on whether you define a Mac in terms of its hardware, software, or both. It's a Mac computer, but not a Mac OS. Either way, you'd might as well get used to it. No one is going to bother porting their games to OS X now.


Re:All that remains... (2, Funny)

Eric Giguere (42863) | about 8 years ago | (#15076453)

What I want is to be able to buy a game like Curious George [namco.com] for my daughter and have it work on my existing 3-year-old PC even after upgrading the video driver and installing DirectX 9. If somebody would come up with virtualization software to run newish games on older PCs they'd make a mint...

Re:All that remains... (3, Insightful)

(H)elix1 (231155) | about 8 years ago | (#15076732)

Heh. I'd be game for older games to work with current hardware. My little one has a mess of older games that don't want to run on anything but Win98.

Re:All that remains... (4, Interesting)

Zardus (464755) | about 8 years ago | (#15077151)

Its weird how game compatibility goes. We can run almost everything made on things like Commodores and such (various emulators for everything), and with the latest release of dosbox, we can run almost all the DOS and a lot of the Win3.1 (not that there were that many) games. Its the stuff between that and Win2k that's iffy.

It almost seems like there's this hole that's a lack of support, and its shrinking from the tail end while eating up a bigger and bigger time period. Not sure if its expanding faster than its shrinking, but its rather interesting. I think with Vista's release, a lot of older but still-playable games (late 98 era) will become unplayable, and at the same time Wine will keep getting better and will be able to play the oldest games unplayable now (95-era and such).

On a different note, software like dosbox and the like seems to go partway toward nullifying the argument for open-sourcing games. I mean, games that were open sourced (Gladiator [sf.net], Rise of the Triad [icculus.org], the Dooms and Quakes, etc) do live on today on modern systems, but the games that weren't are still very much alive and playable. In facts, Dosbox's enhancements like modem and IPX emulation make those games better and better! Of course, no matter how good Dosbox gets, it still won't be able to make, for example, the original Transport Tycoon Deluxe [wikipedia.org] be anywhere near as good as OpenTTD [openttd.org], but its still cool how they improve well after their support life-cycle is over.

I kinda lost my point in all that, or maybe disproved it or never had one to begin with, but its still interesting. Maybe a bit off-topic, too....

Re:All that remains... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15077228)

Are they old DOS games or Windows 95/98 games?

If the former, then DOSBox, with an optional front end of D-Fend works awesome. I play all kinds of old games, like Starflight, XCOM, Diplomacy, etc. The only one I have not gotten to work at all is Crusader:No Remourse, although a few are just too processor intensive for DOSBox to emulate.

D-Fend provides a very nice front end so you don't have to do a lot of messing around in text files.

As far as Windows 95/98 games, check the properties on the application. Look in the Compatability tab, and try setting the checkbox for Compatability mode. I've had a lot of 95/98 applications work fine under this mode.

"work" (4, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 8 years ago | (#15076167)

Considering that when many people say that they need a Windows machine to do "work" on, they actually mean they need it for playing games, I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see more people make the switch. Admittedly, as the summary states, this would be the lower to middle end gamers. The high end gamers will still spend 500 bucks every 6 months on the newest graphics card, all the while bitching about how expensive Macs are...

Re:"work" (0, Troll)

Slashcrap (869349) | about 8 years ago | (#15076340)

Considering that when many people say that they need a Windows machine to do "work" on, they actually mean they need it for playing games

Yeah, and when people say that they need a Mac to do "graphic design" on, they actually mean that they work in advertising, producing the kind of irritating punch-the-monkey marketing shit that makes people want to rip their own eyes out.

In all seriousness, the fact that you can't think of any work task for which people could conceivably need a Windows machine doesn't mean that they don't exist. It is much more likely that you hold that view because you are a blinkered little MacTard that has never had a proper job.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Are gamers switching to Intel based Macs? No. No matter how much you all want it to be true. And why do you want it to be true? I think that if you engaged in some serious self-analysis to try and discern the deep seated reasons why you want that sort of thing to be true so badly, you would come across some seriously fucked up shit lurking in your subconscious.

Re:"work" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076359)

Ever tried color matching between different Windows machines?

Re:"work" (1)

Ravenscall (12240) | about 8 years ago | (#15076510)

I am a gamer. I use a PC currently, and a really old iBook. I have decided that as soon as the Intel Powermacs are out, since I can dual boot Windows on them, I am getting one.

So yes, some of us are going to switch.

Re:"work" (1)

rwven (663186) | about 8 years ago | (#15077156)

I fear that is going to be a very small "some."

I've been what you might consider a "hardcore gamer" for going on eight years and i've never had the faintest desire to switch to apple. It's a possibility that down the road if every game for Windows also has a Mac version that it might make a bit of sense. And that would also require that the price of a mac get down into the reasonable "PC" range. As of now, windows does more for me than mac could and if i bought a mac to dual boot...it would never enter OSX. Basically all that is is an overpriced PC...

If i want pretty visual effect, there are a plethora of lovely windows gadgets that can do that for me.

Re:"work" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076717)

I would be willing to switch to using Macs entirely simply to use (Microsoft) Office 2004 (instead of 2k3 for windows). That app alone makes the switch worthwhile if you are in the market for a new machine. Unfortunatly I cannot because I have to use Visual Studio.

Re:"work" (3, Insightful)

Palshife (60519) | about 8 years ago | (#15076796)

I have a desktop machine that I've been using for games for the last 5 years. I've done various upgrades, switched out components, reinstalled the OS, you name it.

As soon as I can, I'm going to stop using my desktop machine and buy a MacBook Pro.

PS - You're making sweeping generalizations about gamers on an article specifically geared toward gamers. I suggest a new strategy. Don't be a dick.

Re:"work" (3, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 8 years ago | (#15076440)

Yep. Admittedly, running games is the only reason I would consider dual-boot for my iMac, and I'm still holding off for now.

Re:"work" (1)

fistfullast33l (819270) | about 8 years ago | (#15076492)

I agree with you, a lot of people will switch now that they can run both XP and OS X. The only thing that keeps me tied to Windows at home is the fact that I can't run many games on Linux without hassle or money (cedega just isn't worth the effort IMO). I also am going to agree with you on the cost of a Mac vs. the cost of a video card. Both cost alot of money. So I personally am not going to buy a Mac in the near future, but it is something that's potentially down the road for me. However, the real thing I'm hoping for is that as developers can finally standardize on Mac hardware for Windows games, it might encourage them to turn games out for the Mac quicker. Since Mac is based on Unix, it might also speed up (and increase) the number of "retail" (read: does not need cedega) releases of Linux games as well by decreasing that migration time. That's really what I'm waiting for. The only thing tying me to Windows right now is the games, and Linux is my favorite alternative. The only thing I like about OS X over XP is a new and improved interface, and I can get that with Linux by running E17.

OS X is definitely a better OS IMO than Windows, but Linux is cheaper and I get all the bells and whistles I want. I think moving to Mac is definitely something most "image concious" geeks want to do, but I'm going to sit back and wait to see how it all falls out.

Re:"work" (1)

geoffspear (692508) | about 8 years ago | (#15076752)

Since Mac is based on Unix, it might also speed up (and increase) the number of "retail" (read: does not need cedega) releases of Linux games as well by decreasing that migration time.

Umm, no. Porting Linux software to OS X, if you're willing to put up with using X Windows instead of Quartz (or, for that matter, the terminal with no GUI) is fairly trivial.

Porting a native Mac application to Linux doesn't get any easier just because they're both unix-based.

Re:"work" (1)

Enowhat (966593) | about 8 years ago | (#15077171)

Mac prices have come down compared to how bad they used to be. Ive never owned one and got out of supporting them a while ago, but I remember it was always very very expensive for parts. Since the only liscenced vendor was Apple and obviously, they made a killing on selling upgrades, parts, etc etc. My own system I rag to the bleeding edge that my money can stretch to, so I find upgades and even replacement components, (damn you, cheap honky power supplies) seem to happen fairly often. If I tan the hell out of a mac, surely it'll experience a higher fail rate also. Given the total cost of owning a mac is higher. And their lack of flexibility, Mines a pc please, Mr Vendor. Plus, Most of my mates and I seem to thrive on finding components cheaply, on bargain sites, thus spending less money than the common odds, for the bleeding edge flop-fix. Or maybe thats just the student contingent.

Sexy hardware (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | about 8 years ago | (#15076174)

Of course, games enthusiasts who like to customise their systems and upgrade their hardware (such as graphics cards) at the drop of a hat may still prefer the tinkering freedom a PC allows.

That sounds like most PC gamers to me, actually. Casual gamers are more likely to stick to a console. In any event, gamers are a crowd where looks matter. A Mac can be sexy, but an Alienware [alienware.com] box is somehow simultaneously sexy and badass, and that's what gamers like.

Re:Sexy hardware (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | about 8 years ago | (#15076263)

That sounds like most PC gamers to me, actually. Casual gamers are more likely to stick to a console.

I think they mean "occasional gamers," not "casual gamers". People always throw around the "casual gamer" term without understanding what market it actually represents.

That being said, online gaming is still a big market for casual gaming. The only problem the market has run into is, how do you make money off of all these users who want fast, fun, and free games? It's been a bit of a sticky issue. We'll see if the whole cell phone gaming craze takes off or not.

Re:Sexy hardware (0)

kunwon1 (795332) | about 8 years ago | (#15076349)

So you're saying gamers want an overpriced, poorly assembled PC that you won't be able to get customer support for?

Re:Sexy hardware (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 8 years ago | (#15076423)

n any event, gamers are a crowd where looks matter. A Mac can be sexy, but an Alienware box is somehow simultaneously sexy and badass, and that's what gamers like.

It's funny you should mention that. I was talking to a few people the other day about what kinds of laptops they've been seeing lately and what they infer about others from them. We were talking about the security conventions. There are lots of mac laptops these days, which basically tells people that the user is not one of those "Windows people." That is to say, they probably don't spend their time securing a large corporate network that has bought into the MS way of doing things. Mac users tend to be old UNIX guys, or mixed environment people. Ultra small Sony or IBM laptops are seen as a sign of someone who probably has 16 virtual desktops containing 25 terminal windows, a browser, and a few other random graphical apps. You know the type. Someone even mentioned Alienware. "I saw some guy with an Alienware laptop. He must be completely clueless. Who would spend all that money for the same crappy hardware in a case with an alien logo on it?"

I guess it all depends upon the appearance you want to present to a given crowd. Since most gamers are more driven by marketing nonsense than real understanding of hardware, I can see why Alienware might make a good impression.

Re:Sexy hardware (2, Insightful)

Enowhat (966593) | about 8 years ago | (#15077258)

Agree and disagree. there are divisions within the gamer clique. Those that go for looks, A kind of gamer-chav, that blings the case, and then there are the beige-gamers. who think that plain cases, with a machine that can out think a cray inside, are where its at. Looks arent everything. Personally i wouldnt buy alienware, because the fun is building the box myself and making a beefy silcone bit-vomiter. And I think most gamers are similar. they love making a machine that pushes the limits and allows them to run Star wars galaxies on all max settings. (Though most of us can only dream.)

Re:Sexy hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076474)

Posting anonymously for being a fool and his money, but I spend about $2,500/year keeping myself set up with a high end gaming machine, and with Boot Camp I am gladly running away from Alienware to a Mac. Maybe teenagers think a "badass" computer is cool, but to me it's just embarrassing.

Re:Sexy hardware (1)

Generic Guy (678542) | about 8 years ago | (#15076586)

In any event, gamers are a crowd where looks matter. A Mac can be sexy, but an Alienware box is somehow simultaneously sexy and badass

From the few people I've ever known unfortunate enough to own an Alienware computer, corroborated with other tales of customer service woes I've seen posted around the 'Net makes me feel pity for anyone who wasted their money on an Alienware rig. Last's week's story about Dell buying Alienware made me think customers might actually have a chance of getting after the sale service.

Apple doesn't necessarily have the greatest machines, but compared to the other manufacturers their service is stellar. A few Apple machines might have recurring issues, but at least you can get ahold of customer service. Warranties and actual "customer care" is what I'd be looking at with an Apple rig, especialy now that they can run Windows XP.

XP? (5, Funny)

Kangburra (911213) | about 8 years ago | (#15076178)

Microsoft heaven, Apple users actually buying copies of Windows at full retail prices!

Re:XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15077122)

Apple heaven. Windows users that need a Windows only app and couldn't switch before will be buying Mac hardware, which will include OSX and they might find out they like it.

Q: Will there be a way to write an application that would actually run under both OS?

Really? (3, Interesting)

Workshed (838497) | about 8 years ago | (#15076221)

Personally I would rather spend money on a PC that is probably a more capable at playing games (given the graphics card) than a Mac. Though I wouldn't put myself in the casual gamer category I can't see why a casual gamer would pay more for a Mac if a bit of casual gaming is one of the buying factors...

Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (4, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | about 8 years ago | (#15076224)

Yup. [hylobatidae.org] And it works really well. Really, really well. Better than on my desktop PC.

At the Valve Developer Community, a few of us are logging how Valve games run on these new Macs [valvesoftware.com], so if you've got any new information, feel free to contribute.

I do think it will kill most native MacOS gaming, or at least cause a major shake-up. But I'm not surprised - paying through the nose for years-old ports of PC games just didn't appeal to me, to be honest.

But what I've got now is a Universal Computer, capable of running Mac software (both PowerPC and Intel), UNIX stuff (thanks to Fink and X11.app) and now Windows stuff. I've been dual-booting on my PCs between Linux and Windows for years, so I'm familiar with the drawbacks, but the advantages are great. By day, for work and for my photography, I have a high-powered Mac laptop, and by night, for gaming and modding stuff, I've got a high-powered PC laptop.

Not bad!

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076307)

You sound like a Universal Loser.

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (4, Insightful)

wvitXpert (769356) | about 8 years ago | (#15076364)

I do think it will kill most native MacOS gaming, or at least cause a major shake-up.

Are games going to start shipping with a free copy of Windows XP? If not I don't see how game manufacturers are going to assume that all the Mac users have Windows also.

Of course sales may drop and force the companies out of business. But the game developers aren't going to say "Well, you can now pay $300 to buy a copy of Windows to run on your Mac, so were going to stop making Mac games."

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 8 years ago | (#15076595)

I don't see how game manufacturers are going to assume that all the Mac users have Windows also.

They'll just stop porting games to OS X altogether. Why bother?


Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (3, Insightful)

MoneyT (548795) | about 8 years ago | (#15077124)

Why bother?

For the same reason that despite the fact that OS X can and does run X11 apps easily, people still spend time porting them to aqua and the mac environment. Because mac users HATE applications that don't look and play the same way that the rest of the applications do. And rebooting in to windows every time you want to play your game is not going to win many customers.

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (2, Insightful)

AaronLawrence (600990) | about 8 years ago | (#15076674)

No, they will assume - correctly - that most of these gamers will pirate XP. After all, they "only want it for games" so Microsoft doesn't really deserve any money... right?

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (1)

GauteL (29207) | about 8 years ago | (#15076954)

"Yup. And it works really well. Really, really well. Better than on my desktop PC."

Not only that, but the MacBook Pro is very competitively priced compared to other high-end Core Duo laptops.

I've tried fiddling with options on the Dell website and the outcome is always a slightly more expensive Dell machine for similar hardware and software. None of these machines are cheap, however.

I'd wait for a few revisions, given how new the system is, but the Macbook Pro is one tasty machine for a decent price.

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076998)

"And it works really well. Really, really well. Better than on my desktop PC"
Which incidentally has nothing to do with it being a Mac.
The Mac now is just an Intel motherboard with an Intel chip. If you're running Windows XP on that, you've pretty much got a PC, so I'd expect no slowdown whatsoever. Coupled with the fact that the dual core chips have an edge on anything but the fastest P4 desktop chips, and it should just be faster.
Having said that - would gamers buy Macs? Nope, no way! The reason is that now Apple have moved to Intel, they're locked into their release schedule. Macs used to have a long shelf life - which was worth paying for - and moving to Intel has taken that planned release schedule away from Apple's control.

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (1)

biglig2 (89374) | about 8 years ago | (#15077028)

Heh, I'd just about decided that rather than spend money (and a month of headaches trying to figure out which one to get) on a new video card so I can play HL2, I'd get myself a Mac Mini instead.

Now it looks like there is a chance that I can get both at once. Sweet!

What I'm looking for, and hopefully will shortly see on your wiki, is a comparison between the two CPU choices on the mini. I had originally settled on a Single Core with 1Gb of RAM as the best set-up for me, but if Dual Core is going to make a difference to gaming, I might stretch the credit card a little further.

(Heh, that last sentence almost convinced me that I'm not going to say "Fuck it, give me the Dual Core" 10 seconds after I enter the Apple Store. ;-)

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (2, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | about 8 years ago | (#15077206)

What I'm looking for, and hopefully will shortly see on your wiki, is a comparison between the two CPU choices on the mini. I had originally settled on a Single Core with 1Gb of RAM as the best set-up for me, but if Dual Core is going to make a difference to gaming, I might stretch the credit card a little further.

My father's got a single-boot, single-core Intel Mac Mini, and while it's a great little machine for MacOS X stuff, from what I've heard from web forums and the like the graphics system on both Mac Mini models is fairly low-performance. While it'll run HL2, you wouldn't want it as a gaming machine.

Probably only the iMacs and MacBook Pro will be any use for PC gaming purposes due to the faster graphics chips in them, but they're probably only recommended if you want a Mac which can also run PC games, rather than a machine for games only. There's no possibility of replacing a graphics card at a later date, for example.

Still, I'm happy with this MacBook Pro. I bought it as a high-speed Mac laptop, and amused to find it's also a high-speed PC as well. I'm not complaining...

Re:Half-Life 2 on a MacBook Pro? (1)

Dark Paladin (116525) | about 8 years ago | (#15077065)

Makes you wonder how many game developers will look at this and say "Gee - if we do the Blizzard route and make our games dual-platform, that could be a selling point - 'Don't reboot - our game is Windows/Mac compatible!".

I actually think it will cause *more* developers to think this way, since it's a competitive advantage to do so (at least in marketing terms).

The problem (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | about 8 years ago | (#15076269)

I use a Mac at work and have a PC at home. For some reason, I feel like I have the ability to tinker with the PC more.

Also, another major factor is pirating things. Lets not get into the moral/ethical/legal arguments over this. The fact of the matter is that for a lot of people who are PC gamers...there is no good source of pirated Mac software (not that I've found at least). Believe it or not, that affects a lot of peoples decisions, especially since a decent Mac for gaming is quite expensive on its own.

However the one thing I'd LOVE for a PC is Frontrow, since my PC is also my media center. If they came out with that for the PC, complete with a remote and possibly a wireless adapter to stream to my TV, I'd buy it in an instant.

As it is, I'm considering getting a Macbook so I can dual-boot into Windows and have hte best of both worlds...although I'm really wondering how the Macbooks stack up comparison wise to a regular PC notebook when it comes to running games.

Re:The problem (1)

KevinH456 (564212) | about 8 years ago | (#15076466)

You sir are sorely mistaken. I have been heavily pirating Mac software, including games, since 1998. Like any niche market, there is a small but very very dedicated group for supporting Mac users. This includes multiple locations for pirated software. The difference between a PC and a Mac is that on the PC you have a ton of options, but each of them varies heavily in quality. On the Mac there may only be a few, but they are very high quality. For moral and self interest reasons of protecting my sources, I will not speak those places here. But they exist, and I know someone will back me up on this.

Re:The problem (2, Insightful)

FatMacDaddy (878246) | about 8 years ago | (#15076672)

Since the late 80s I've had a Mac at home and a PC at work. Ever since Apple brought out the G4 PowerMac towers, though, I have the opposite impression of which is an easier box to reconfigure. I found the tower designs are so accessible and well thought out that it makes it difficult to keep your fingers out of the innards. I agree that there aren't as many hardware choices and vendors, but when I swap components or whatever, I have a much greater comfort level that my new config will work fine right off the bat. Working on Windows PCs always seems like a crapshoot with a hundred hiddens "gotchas" waiting to happen.

Re:The problem (1)

Khuffie (818093) | about 8 years ago | (#15076787)

However the one thing I'd LOVE for a PC is Frontrow, since my PC is also my media center. If they came out with that for the PC, complete with a remote and possibly a wireless adapter to stream to my TV, I'd buy it in an instant. Windows Media Center Edition...tried it? Because its far more advanced than FrontRow from what I've seen. I managed to grab a remote off ebay, but you should be able to get them off OEM retailers.

Re:The problem (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 8 years ago | (#15076990)

Also, another major factor is pirating things. Lets not get into the moral/ethical/legal arguments over this. The fact of the matter is that for a lot of people who are PC gamers...there is no good source of pirated Mac software (not that I've found at least).

So, what you're saying is that people who know the least about Macs have the hardest time finding a source for ripped off Mac software? DUH!

Believe it or not, that affects a lot of peoples decisions, especially since a decent Mac for gaming is quite expensive on its own.

This isn't about morality or ethics, if you can afford a $2,000 computer, you can afford software. If you don't want to pay for it, there is plenty of free software out there.


Re:The problem (1)

bar-agent (698856) | about 8 years ago | (#15077037)

I use a Mac at work and have a PC at home. For some reason, I feel like I have the ability to tinker with the PC more.

Do you think maybe that is because one is at home and the other at work?

Encouraging porting? (1)

Kaellenn (540133) | about 8 years ago | (#15076278)

I'd like to think that if such an exodus occurs, it will encourage developers to port to mac osx. The problem is: I think it will actually discourage it. If mac owners can play their games already; why even bother with a port?

I'm still not sure how I feel about this whole "boot camp" thing. I don't want to see Dvorak's prediction come true.

Re:Encouraging porting? (3, Insightful)

avalys (221114) | about 8 years ago | (#15076398)

It will definitely discourage game developers from porting to OS X. No one minds a two minute pause to reboot into Windows when they want to spend the next three hours playing a game.

It will not do anything to application developers, however. No one would tolerate a two minute pause when they want to run Photoshop, for example. And then a two minute pause when they want to check their email, and have to reboot again.

The ability to run Windows on a Mac does two things:

1) It makes it easy for people to play games.
2) It makes it possible for people to still run any Windows applications that they depend on. Not convenient, but possible.

#1 will impact Mac game sales, yeah. But I don't really give a shit about Mac games, they're overpriced and out of date. It's not like the industry was exactly thriving, anyway - most gamers with Macs have a PC.

Re:Encouraging porting? (1)

StingRay02 (640085) | about 8 years ago | (#15077175)

I hate to agree with this, being the life long Mac devotee that I am, but you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm planning on getting an upgraded 20" iMac now that you can dual boot. I only plan on using the XP side for games, and really, not even for Half Life 2 or Oblivion, but older games like Dungeon Keeper that hasn't come out on Mac, or Civ3 that has, but can't connect to PCs for LAN games. I have no intention of doing anything else on the XP side. There's no way in hell I'd surf the web or check email in XP, and I've got all my other needs covered with the software currently on my Mac. At the same time, while I can see this hurting companies like Aspyr, smaller companies and shareware game makers probably won't be affected at all. Ambrosia Software has been a dedicated Mac developer for years, and while I love quite a few of their games, I wouldn't want to waste my time booting into XP just for one of them. Same goes for GameHouse or PopCap. Smaller games, games my wife would play with regularity, I imagine will continue on as they have been without too much trouble.

Where's the fun... (1)

AdityaG (842691) | about 8 years ago | (#15076279)

if you just buy a mac and install XP and play games? I personally love building PCs. Each time is just as much fun as the previous. Apple hardware IS pretty but I feel a lot of the people who build their own PCs will just stick with building...

He lost me at (1)

Tarindel (107177) | about 8 years ago | (#15076281)

"These same gamers often look forlornly at their Mac-wielding mates and their groovier-than-thou machines, and wonder why they're stuck with their beige-coloured HP or Dell boxes (obviously Alienware owners have no such envy)".

Right. Because style is way more important than functionality, availability of software, or ability to upgrade. The reason Apple's products sell well is because they tend to combine out-of-the-box style with ease of use. Having to set up your machine to multi-boot and then manage/maintain dual operating systems does not qualify as "easy to use" in my opinion.

I have nothing against the new macs -- in fact, I think it would be cool to have one to tinker with. But this article gives no real reasons other than the style-factor why gamers would actually want to switch to mac machines. Consequently, this article is useless prognosticating based on someone's gut feeling. I think we can do better than that.

Re:He lost me at (1)

FatMacDaddy (878246) | about 8 years ago | (#15076893)

I agree. I don't know a single gamer who envies my Mac machines. Instead, they sneer at the many titles I don't have access to without running Windows. In my case, though, as Willie said, "they jest at scars that never felt a wound."

I don't think the envy the author suggests is really out there much.

Why spend a ton on a Mac (or factory PC)? (2, Insightful)

scoser (780371) | about 8 years ago | (#15076289)

I prefer building my own gaming rig and putting in the parts I want and upgrading when I please, how I please. And god knows any gaming rig I put together will be cheaper, both in the short and long run, than any advertised "gamer" or "power user" system, Mac or PC.

Re:Why spend a ton on a Mac (or factory PC)? (1)

jnd3 (116181) | about 8 years ago | (#15076718)

Yeah, you'd think that, wouldn't you? I priced out what I'd spent on my mid-range gaming rig (Athlon XP 2100-based system) over the three years that I had it. Grand total for hardware and software (and that's sans games): over $1400.

Hm. That's about what an iMac costs, isn't it?

Sure, my initial outlay for the box was about $600. But then I got the DVD burner. And the LCD. And the extra memory. And I upgraded the video card. And then reformatted and reinstalled Windows 2000 and then Windows XP Media Center a few times. And also upgraded the drivers every time a new one came down from the vendors due to various performance improvements and bug fixes.

Frankly, I just got tired of the time investment (not to mention the trickle of cash) required to upgrade and maintain a PC for the main purpose of gaming.

Apple is going to make a killing... (4, Insightful)

avalys (221114) | about 8 years ago | (#15076310)

To everyone who thinks this is going to be Apple's demise, you are completely wrong. No one buys a Mac for the hardware. Apple blathers on and on about how they're a hardware company, but that's bull. They're a software company, and they make the best desktop operating system on the planet.

No one is going to buy a Mac now to run Windows on it. They're going to buy a Mac because they've always wanted to try OS X, but they have a few stubborn applications that they need to run on Windows, and until now couldn't justify the risk of switching and losing access to them. People on here would say "Just keep a second computer!", but most people aren't interested in that.

It is absurd to suggest that Apple is going to die now that people can run Windows on their Mac. The whole point of a Mac is NOT to run Windows. That's why people pay Apple's high prices - for the ability to run OS X. Companies are not going to stop making OS X software just because Apples can run Windows - if people wanted Windows, they would've bought a freaking Dell!

Take my dad, for instance. He loves to play chess against Fritz 8 and over the net with Playchess.com, which I bought him a few years ago. But it only runs on Windows. He's been wanting to get a Mac when his current computer dies, but until now he wouldn't be able to run his favorite software. He doesn't mind the hassle of dual-booting.

This will entice a huge population of people who have been teetering on the edge to make the switch. And now every time they reboot into OS X from Windows, or into Windows from OS X, the superiority of OS X will become clear. Even more so as time goes on, when the Windows installation becomes a spyware-infested, bloated piece of crap with fifteen different taskbar icons taking up 30MB of RAM each that starts to pause mysteriously after common tasks, and OS X just keeps humming along.

I didn't have any plans to upgrade my PowerBook before this, but I'm going to pick up a MacBook Pro this weekend.

Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (1)

Rifter13 (773076) | about 8 years ago | (#15076441)

I love how all the Mac supporters say that they have the best OS in the world. That is all fine and dandy, and I admit, I have not used it much, but it looks pretty. On the other hand, I use the OS to load my programs. That is about it. Most production software used on MACs are either on the PC, or have something EXTREMELY similiar. The reason Macs have a market (IMHO) is that college students learn on a mac, because their instructor taught them on a mac.

Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (2, Informative)

avalys (221114) | about 8 years ago | (#15076629)

Give me a break. College students learn what on a Mac? No one goes to college and takes "Checking your email 101".

OS X is Unix on the desktop that works. That's why it's appealing to me.

I hated Macs for years until OS X comes out - I was a die-hard Linux user. But now, I have all the ease-of-use and hassle-free-ness of OS X, with access to every one of my favorite Unix/Linux applications when I need them.

There are other features, too: Spotlight is incredibly cool, for instance. And Expose is awesome.

Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (1)

Rifter13 (773076) | about 8 years ago | (#15076795)

Sorry, I should have explained myself better. Out of all of the people I have worked with, the artists are MAC people. Everyone else uses a PC. You ask an artist where they learned to use the MAC, and the lion's share, learned it at College. Those that did not, were getting the same equipment that another illistrator had. Several years ago, MACs had the advantage when it came to audio/video hardware. Hands down, they were better than PCs. At some point, the PCs caught up. Saying that the OS is pretty, is not compelling enough to me, to spend 250% more for my hardware. The other poster said he chose OSX, because it is Linux. I doubt that there are LEGIONS of LINUX users also lining up to use MACs.

Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076961)

I go to MIT. I would say that fully half, maybe more, of the computers used by professors and students here are Macs.

And obviously, these are not artists. They are scientists, engineers, Nobel-prize winning physicists. Hell, a few weeks ago, we had Gilad Bracha (the guy at Sun responsible for maintaining Java) give a guest lecture. He presented the slides with a PowerBook.

That should tell you something. These are some of the smartest people in the world - they're not buying the Macs for the pretty colors. My friends tell me the situation is the same at other technical colleges.

Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (0, Troll)

Palshife (60519) | about 8 years ago | (#15076710)

We say we have the best desktop OS in the world because we do.

OS X is more than pretty. OS X represents a great step beyond the user experience of Windows, and the reason Apple has market share is because they work their ass off trying to tell people. I'm a customer as of last year. I'll be on Macs as long as they keep innovating the way they have been. Hell, I believe in them so much I'm willing to debate complete strangers to help them see my point of view.

My advice is to try the things you normally do on a PC out on a Mac (if you have access to one, or at an Apple store). OS X is not only worth switching to, I believe it's costly not to.

Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 8 years ago | (#15077002)

We say we have the best desktop OS in the world because we do.

And I say you're smug because you are.


Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (1)

punkr0x (945364) | about 8 years ago | (#15076626)

OR: People will say, finally, I can buy a mac! But that on app they really like to use that kept them from switching is still only available for windows, so they'll just boot their mac into windows. They don't have any apps on the mac side that they have got used to using. Eventually their windows partition will get bogged down with malware and they won't be able to install a new dvd burner and they'll say, "Hell, this mac is more problems than the old pc!" The OS difference is irrelevant if their favorite program is still on windows.

Re:Apple is going to make a killing... (1)

iphayd (170761) | about 8 years ago | (#15077224)

Think about it this way. There are companies out there that allow each user to choose the system that they are most efficient working in. These types of companies no longer have to maintain two lines of hardware, as they can buy Apple equipment and install Boot Camp and Windows. I'm sure that there are ways of running Linux on the intel Macs, but I haven't looked into it myself, given that I don't have an interest in it.

Bout time... (4, Insightful)

steveo777 (183629) | about 8 years ago | (#15076314)

But then there are the legions of more casual gamers who only upgrade every several years or so -- as long as they can play what's available at their local games shop

It's about time somebody said it. In fact, I'd say that not even 5% of gamers are so hardcore that they upgrade anything in their PC every six months or less. I usually just get construct a cheap rig and upgrade it after a year or two and then jump to the next cheap rig and re-use any parts that I can. I do have a desktop replacement that I replace every two years or so as well. I'm one of the legion, I suppose.

Enough, already! (1)

rocjoe71 (545053) | about 8 years ago | (#15076325)

I apologize ahead of time for sounding troll-ish, but this is yet another story about "people might get a Mac-- this time for sure!".

It's boring as shit.

Clearly whatever the Mac has up to now has only been compelling enough to make some people switch-- when are you going to get off your butts and make a compelling reason for the average guy to switch (read: Killer App).

Re:Enough, already! (1)

Jacob Moogberg (876462) | about 8 years ago | (#15076619)

What's even more boring are these stories posted by people who switched to the Mac a few months ago.
Then those boring reports about increasing sales of Macs.
Who could have guess that Apple would turn so boring?

Seems like an awful lot of money, to me. (-1, Troll)

Rifter13 (773076) | about 8 years ago | (#15076346)

I find it odd that so many people are jumping up and down, at the thought of being able to run XP on their $2,500 MAC... just as well as their $1,000 PC. The problem I have with macs, is that they are appliances. When they get old, you toss them. They do not have the same expandabiilty of a PC. And heaven forbid that something goes wrong, hard-ware wise! I admit, the Mac has a cleaner interface. Much cleaner/nicer. But, that is what it has going for it. There are not a lot of programs that are MAC only. And the major audio/video programs that used to run best on a MAC, now run just as good, on a PC. Finally, from a gamer's perspective... won't today's modern, 5 (or so) buttom mouse just make the poor little mac implode? Isn't that why they have only used 1 button for SO many years?

Re:Seems like an awful lot of money, to me. (1)

DrOct (883426) | about 8 years ago | (#15076479)

Macs have supported multi-button mice for years. They came with single button mice for a long time, for a myriad of design reasons, but they can use multi-button mice. I've been using a standard 2 button mouse with a scroll wheel on my macs for years, and the new ones (ie the iMacs) come with apples new 4 button mouse (on of the buttons is also the scroll ball, which allows you to scroll up and down and left to right).

Re:Seems like an awful lot of money, to me. (0, Troll)

Rifter13 (773076) | about 8 years ago | (#15076849)

So... some moron disagrees with my opinion and marks my post as a troll? Jeeze you just HAVE to love Slashdot moderation. So... what part of my post was a troll... the part that I think $2,500 for a PC that can run XP just like a $1000 PC seems an awful lot? The fact that the OS is nicer than XP? Is that the troll? Or was it my little joke about multi-button mice?

Looking for an excuse to switch? (0, Troll)

iminplaya (723125) | about 8 years ago | (#15076348)

Why? Future Macs will just be Wintel machines with a pretty face. Gamers had their chance to switch. After 2007 there will be no switch, unless Apple finds true enlightenment and moves away from the herd and towards the Alpha chip. Man, what a bunch of cattle. Simply doing something because "everybody else" is doing it. Apple didn't go to Intel because it was better. It was a cost cutting move, with all the implicit degradation. UGH! It doesn't matter how smooth you look when the underlying architecture crumbles under the slightest load.

Does it matter for GPU upgrades? (1)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | about 8 years ago | (#15076397)

As long as Apple is using commodity hardware, wouldn't you still theoretically be able to plug the latest and greatest graphics card into it (if it supports the interface), and still have it run fine with the Windows install? The graphics card working to its full potential in OS X would be in question, but for games in Windows it might still work. Interesting concept that someone might now be able to make their Mac have all the compatibility problems Windows systems are known for. (I'm not trying to troll. Control of hardware does help stability, and when you've got a few hundred options for memory, CPU, Video, Sound. etc. devices, it creates a competitive market (thus more features and better prices), but it is also more likely somewhere along the line you could get something that doesn't work well together)......

Re:Does it matter for GPU upgrades? (1)

adavies42 (746183) | about 8 years ago | (#15077177)

Yes, but only when the Intel-based equivalent of the current G5 desktops finally comes out. iMacs and MacBooks are non-upgradeable except in the trivial RAM-and-hard-drive sense.

Nice Mac ad there.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076424)

Seems to me the majority of the gamers who are still on the PC platform nowadays are also into hardware tweaking and/or building their own system.

If Apple starts shipping SLi/CrossFire systems with AMD CPUs then maybe I'll believe this article was more than pay for press/fanboi-ism....

Gaming on a Mac won't catch on until... (1)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | about 8 years ago | (#15076429)

Gaming on a Mac won't catch on until most of the really popular games are availible for Mac as well as PC. I don't see dual booting as the gateway to Mac gaming for the average user- it's pretty much just the power users now who even know dual-boot systems exist, much less how to create one. The /. crowd, though, will have fun with it...

Re:Gaming on a Mac won't catch on until... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15077119)

People don't buy Mac for hardware, they buy it for the OS. They also buy it for ease of use. Dual boot is not easy to use, and not geared for a typical Mac user...it's aimed at a higher-end user. Higher end users, which also are usually the higher end gamers, will also be the ones who want to be able to replace their hardware regularly. It just seems the market for this dual boot idea doesn't really exist. Low end users won't be able to use it, and high end users won't bother with a Mac in the first place (unless they can afford to buy an entire new machine yearly). Maybe a mid range user would go for this, but they're also the ones who stick to consoles for gaming anyway. I think this dual boot is more of a fun toy than a useful tool at this point.

why in the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076457)

would gamers, CASUAL gamers at that, flock to Mac just because they can now also run Windows on the Mac? Gamers still won't have a huge available library of games on Mac computers. Last I checked, Windows was still required to run the majority of games coming out these days. Yippy! dual booting. We're talking about casual gamers here right? the kind who just like to jump in and jump out of games and don't necessarily know how to do a whole lot with their computers beyond entry level functions? They're going to be masters of dual booting? Interesting.

So, the article posits that gamers, the same gamers who don't "tinker" with their systems very often to upgrade parts to play the latest games, will pay far more for a Mac only to run Windows on it to play their games. Lesse, a reasonable desktop from dell with an LCD monitor is running $400-$1000 these days depending on specs, if you get the "top of the line", you get into the $2000+ area for something on the bleeding edge that won't necessarily be obsolete by June of this year. Meanwhile, iMacs enter at $1299 and scale up from there with comparable specs to the $400-1000 system. Assuming these "casual gamers" aren't pirates, they're going to have to shell out for an XP SP2 OEM installation disc just to play the games they would already have been able to play on a PC! Why are they going to be flocking to Apple? This does not make sense.

Also, Mac gaming that includes Boot Camp to use XP is still Windows gaming. It's only Mac gaming if it's running native in OS X and not in XP! That's like saying PSP gaming is going to take off once Sony legitimizes homebrew apps for emulation. PSP gaming isn't taking off, homebrew gaming is taking off and people are spending a retarded amount of money to make it happen. Bah!

More subjective non-article please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15076581)

What kind of pseudo-journalistic crap is this, seriously? "We think that gamers want to switch to intel macs! They'll love it!" Umm. Ok. Show me some market research? No, all you've got is "i know gamers who like macs"? I see. Well clearly this is worthy of being placed as a news piece and linked to as "stuff that matters."

Is this article a joke? (1)

pl1ght (836951) | about 8 years ago | (#15076600)

Hey, not dissing MACs or anything, but MACs are still a long way off from competing with the PC as far as games and upgradeability goes. Even casual gamers these days build up their systems and upgrade every year or so. MACs are EXPENSIVE! Compared to a DELL XPS model, bang for buck still goes to the PC where the gamer is concerned.

Drivers? (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about 8 years ago | (#15076742)

Before everyone gets too excited, has anyone taken a look at the drivers included with Boot Camp? If Apple is using customized drivers that have to be modified for the Mac hardware, then that means gamers will be reliant on Apple to release new drivers. As we all know how important drivers can be in getting new games to work, if we have to wait on Apple to release modified drivers, will Apple be releasing new drivers every single time ATI/Nvidia release drivers, or are we only going to get a couple of updates a year? If so, gaming on a Mac could be harder than it first looks.

Of course, this is assuming we can't use normal video drivers, which I've yet to see a definitive answer on.

Unlikely (1)

hattig (47930) | about 8 years ago | (#15076800)

I find it unlikely that hardcore gamers would switch.

Maybe casual gamers, like me, would switch. An X1600 like in the iMac would suffice.

But the lack of options for faster graphics cards on the consumer machines will limit the total number of gamers choosing Macs.

No need to ever port another game to OS X again! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 8 years ago | (#15076810)

I'll bet the software companies are breathing a sigh of relief. Now they won't have to deal with the hassle of porting their games and software to OS X. Why bother?


Re:No need to ever port another game to OS X again (1)

j-beda (85386) | about 8 years ago | (#15077190)

I suspect that "native" software (of all categories) will sell better than identical non-native software, so there would be some incentive for software producers to differentiate themselves by offering a "native" product. The question of course is whether or not this is a large enough incentive. From an absolute numbers point of view, there are certainly enough Mac users out there to make writing Mac software profitable, but since there are a much larger Windows users, the maximum profit is greater on the Windows side.

I suspect that the market for Mac games will only increase as the Mac market share increases, thus the people now producing Mac games will have a larger market to sell to.

Might Have Helped Me (3, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | about 8 years ago | (#15076895)

I switched in January of last year. Games were on thing that was holding me back, but I realized that I didn't play many games on my PC anyway (I do play a bunch on consoles). I've got my PowerBook G4 and I am very happy. The only thing I miss is counter-strike. I don't see why Valve won't release Half-Life for the Mac (I know they worked on porting it). I'd buy it again in a heartbeat just to play CS.

Would this have helped me? It would give me reassurance, but I doubt I would have used it. Frankly rebooting takes too much time and it's just a hassle. I never reboot my Mac except when it needs security updates that require it. Otherwise it is on 24/7. I take it back and forth to school every day but I just close the lid and it goes into sleep instantly, and wakes up in about 2 seconds.

Now when someone gets either something like WINE working so you could play games (TransGaming... you've got an opportunity here for tons of sales), or true virtulaization gets enabled (some say Apple will do that in 10.5) so that you don't HAVE to reboot, you can just keep Windows in "the background" then I would have JUMPED at the chance to switch to Mac.

There are three things in life. There is having UNIXy goodness (got that), there is having great applications (iLife, Safari, and the ability to run Office/Photoshop), and there are games (got some, missing others). I'd say my Mac scores a 2.3/3.0. Windows is a 2.0/3.0 (games and apps).

Keep up the great work Apple.

So what will most people use this for? Nothing. I expect that virtualization will come out soon enough. All this will do is provide that reassurance for switchers until they go full-on Mac, and I doubt they would use it much.

Mac Gaming... gah (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | about 8 years ago | (#15077186)

Don't get me wrong. I love my Mac. But I can't envision playing any serious games on it. Why? I didn't buy a Mac with any intention of using it for gaming. I bought it for the various creative software, solid operating system and ease-of-use. I've been discovering hobbies and working on various AV projects due to the availability of software, be it first or third party.

And when I did game on my PC, I found it dificult being on a budget when a new title came out and required the purchase of a new video card that I couldn't afford.

I did find a way to make sure every game I buy works right out of the box. I bought consoles.
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