Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs? 261

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs?

Comments Filter:
  • "work" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:01AM (#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...
  • by scoser ( 780371 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:12AM (#15076289) Journal
    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.
  • by avalys ( 221114 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:13AM (#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.
  • Bout time... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by steveo777 ( 183629 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:14AM (#15076314) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by wvitXpert ( 769356 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:18AM (#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."
  • by avalys ( 221114 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:21AM (#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:"work" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JWW ( 79176 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:24AM (#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:The problem (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FatMacDaddy ( 878246 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:43AM (#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.
  • by AaronLawrence ( 600990 ) * on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:43AM (#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?
  • by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:48AM (#15076732) Homepage Journal
    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:"work" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Palshife ( 60519 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @11:53AM (#15076796) Homepage
    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.
  • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:03PM (#15076895) Homepage
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:10PM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:13PM (#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.
  • by MoneyT ( 548795 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:26PM (#15077124) Journal
    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:Sexy hardware (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Enowhat ( 966593 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:38PM (#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:"work" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Yst ( 936212 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @12:42PM (#15077304)
    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...

    But the hobbyist gamers, who combine the hobbies of constantly tinkering with and tweaking their computers with their gaming hobby in order to spend as little as possible and get as much as possible out of it (the sort of folks who bought the hackable Sapphire 9500s in order to mod them into glitchy Radeon 9700 equivalents just because they could) will never be satisfied with the Mac hardware market in anything like its current state. If I know the gamer/tweaker demographic, and I think I do, being very much part of it, these particular hardware hackers want a large selection of widely varied tweaker-friendly motherboards, from cheapo $50 ECS boards to ultra-high-end Asus and Abit boards, and getting the most out of the least and - heck, even the weirdest solution possible - is all part of the fun. Tweakers want a large market both of first and third party system and modding components which don't tie them down to any hardware vendors. It's been the conventional trade-off for running Windows as a gaming OS: to game on a PC, you'll have to run Windows, but you can run pretty much any hardware out there. And it's something a lot of people have grown used to.

    And sure, there are Mac modders, tweakers and hardware hackers. Heck, there are still Amiga modders, tweakers and hackers. But folks who are used to picking which of ten motherboard brands and thirty motherboard models from the current generation they want to use for their next upgrade might find themselves a bit frustrated with the Mac market if they try to shift gears straight away. The question is, does Apple allow them the freedom they were used to under Windows or Linux in the long run? We'll have to see.
  • Re:"work" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danpsmith ( 922127 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @01:58PM (#15078046)
    500 every six months is still cheaper than having to buy a new system every six months. And let's face it, only morons with more money than brains buy 500 dollar video cards every six months.
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @02:53PM (#15078579)

    Now they won't have to deal with the hassle of porting their games and software to OS X. Why bother?

    It's easy, just go to the store and buy a copy of Windows for $200, then download this program from Apple and repartition and install Windows. Boot Windows and install the game. After that each time you want to play a game you just have to reboot while holding down a key and then switch to Windows and then click on the Start menu, then programs then run the game. Simple huh?

    Yeah, that will fly.

    90% or more of users never, ever install an operating system, ever. You expect them to pay for one, and install it in a dual-boot setup and reboot every time they want to play a game. And you expect this of the majority of Mac users? Can you say, "fat chance?"

    Sure, some Mac users will dual boot to play games using a pirated, already owned, or new copy of Windows. Some will play native Windows games using virtualization, or something like WINE. Some companies will use something like WINE to do quick ports. Most users, however, won't settle for that and they are still a big enough market that they are profitable for gaming companies. If some companies count on people dual-booting, others will eat them alive. You think it is a complete coincidence that WoW is on top right now and they just happen to build the Mac version right alongside the Windows one? Nope. They utilize good coding practices and it makes it easy to reach the whole market. Their products are better as a result and for social games (like MMORPGs) it only takes one well-liked person with a mac to keep a whole group using a particular game.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, 2006 @03:21PM (#15078865)
    It's only cheaper if your time is worth nothing.

    How many hours do you spend researching components? Looking for deals on the Internet? Assembling / disassembling your machine?

    How many dud parts have you had to replace out of your own pocket?

    Preassembled/tested/warranted machines are actually a good deal for those of us who work for a living and don't want to dedicate pc maintenance as a full time hobby. Plus, it's ready to use immediately out of the box -- now waiting for weeks on shipping and RMAs etc.
  • Macs Ascendent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UriahZ ( 952170 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @04:21PM (#15079376)
    Note OS X's fast user switching. Did you know that Apple already has a patent on fast OS switching as well? After all, Boot Camp is a beta with more user-friendliness promised for even its full release in 10.5. Could we be looking at a future of seamless full-speed emulation ala Rosetta? That would be ideal, of course, but with OS switching potentially taking less than 30 seconds, it's not a far stretch to imagine a whole lot of people switching. Penny Arcade, who created a character specifically to pick on elitist Mac users, has switched and loves it. I do my gaming on a desktop replacement laptop now (had to sell the Alienware system in my cross-country moves), and the MacBook would be perfect for my needs. I'll be switching as soon as I can come up with the cash.

    In regards to the extra money spent on Apple hardware, that's less true than it used to be-- Alienware systems are actually MORE expensive than Macs these days. Are homebuilders and 'hardcore gamers' gonna be making the switch? No. But who gives a flying fuck about that 5% of the computing population? Regardless of what many people think, the 'hardcore' are not the ones out buying games-- the more casual gamers make up the vast majority of purchases. Most PC gamers (not the 'hardcore' minority) buy a handful of games a year, and replace their system every 3 years, with a few upgrades in the meantime.

    Which brings me to my next point: Apple hardware retains its resale value much much better than other brands (including Alienware). That leads to an interesting cycle that is even cheaper than the homebuilding route, for achieving reasonable performance with excellent polish and style and OS X exclusive software. In short:

    Step 1:
    Buy MacBook Pro for $2500.

    Step 2:
    Use it happily and effectively for 2 years.

    Step 3:
    Sell it for $1200 when you can no longer play with heavy graphical goodies.

    Step 4:
    Buy New MacBook Pro for $2500.

    Looking at it that way, you spend $650 a year after an initial $2500 investment to have a fantastic laptop that can play games. Now, before you jump all over me, be sure to look up your numbers. 2yo PowerBooks really do sell for $1200. Even for 12-inch. Additionally, PC laptops are what, $300 or so cheaper AT MOST at purchase. Yet they don't retain the same kind of resale value. You get back every penny you spent on the more expensive Apple product at resale and then some.

    So yeah. I'm gonna switch ASAP. And it's the right decision.

    Peace out.
  • by illumin8 ( 148082 ) on Thursday April 06, 2006 @04:45PM (#15079617) Journal
    You don't see that you've paid money for a copy of Windows, so in your mind, you've never had to pay for it before. Do you think that will somehow change? That people will suddenly start paying for something they never had to in the past?

    The way I look at it, I've had to buy 3 or more copies of Windows and right now I'm only running a single one of them. If I decide to buy a brand new top of the line AlienWare PC, why shouldn't I be able to install my same old copy of Windows XP on it?

    Microsoft will surely see revenue drop, but this is a good thing. This is the market correcting for the "MS Tax". The MS Tax was never fair. I've already bought a Windows license; I should be able to use it on my new PC instead of buying another one.

    It's not like I sell my old PCs anyway. They get reformatted and I put Linux on them. I have a couple old Dell boxes with the Windows XP hologram logo on the side of the case that are running Linux right now. I paid for that license; shouldn't I be able to install it on my new AMD dual core system that I built myself?
  • by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Thursday April 06, 2006 @05:05PM (#15079855) Journal
    ...but it won't have anything to do with gaming.

    "Normal" gamers won't switch because they'll spend most of their time in Windows so they can play their games, thus defeating the purpose of buying a computer that costs much more than a non-Mac equivalent. There's also the hardcore gamer that has to be on the bleeding edge of everything, and Macs don't allow that sort of crazy upgrading.

    Casual gamers won't switch because they would've already switched to begin with if that was the only thing holding them back. Stuff like Solitaire and PopCap games has always been available on the Mac, and you don't need to dual-boot for it. (And no, if you're one of those gamers who plays a certain Windows-only game enough to where you're willing to use an OS you don't like just to play it, you fit in the first category, not this one.)

    Who are the people that will switch?

    • People who always wanted to switch but have one little Windows-only application that they absolutely require in order to do their jobs. Now they can spend most of their time on OSX and only go to Windows to use that application. This also applies to people who in addition have a Mac-only application that they require (thus meaning that they had to use two computers before), though I expect there are far fewer of those.

    • People who want to test their work on all three major OSes with a minimum of hassle. Now instead of needing at least two computers, you can test the same HTML on all of the big web browsers using the same hardware, for example. Not only does this keep you from having to switch back and forth, copying files between computers and so on, but you also don't have to worry about hardware problems tainting your results.

    • People who are curious about OSX and are ready to get a new computer, but don't want to spend all of that money on something that'll turn into a doorstop if they don't like it. The people that don't like OSX can just use the Mac like a regular PC, while the people that do can make the switch fully.

    • At least some people with more money than sense, e.g. those people who want to switch because of gaming, even though this is logically untenable due to what I've stated before.

    One thing that might happen is that these people switching will increase the marketshare significantly, which would encourage the big game developers to make OSX ports for all of their popular games, and then you'd see gamers start to switch. I'm sure this is what Jobs is hoping for. But it's not going to happen right away.

    Rob

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...