Slashdot Mirror
Gamers Itching To Switch To Macs?
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.'"
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 box is somehow simultaneously sexy and badass, and that's what gamers like.
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...
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, Rise of the Triad, 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 be anywhere near as good as OpenTTD, 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....
You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
People are accustomed to not buying their OS, since nearly every computer ships with one today. Microsoft's demand that OEMs install Windows before shipping the computer has this side-effect: You expect the OS to be part of the deal. 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?
If someone does a study on this a year from now and finds that more than half of the copies of Windows installed on dual-boot Macs are legal, I'd seriously question the study's methodology.
Meanwhile, because Apple is not a Windows OEM, that means that Microsoft (or other OEMs) must deal with the support calls made when things go awry. This increases Microsoft's costs, and the costs of Apple's competitors.
It gets worse for Microsoft: They are in no position to strong-arm Apple into an OEM contract of any kind. Apple doesn't want the contract, and the claim that they're shipping computers without an OS is leading people to pirate the OS falls flat. Apple is shipping an os, they can claim that what people do with the dual-boot is not Apple's responsibility, and they're right.
Microsoft can claim that Boot Camp is leading to more piracy, and they'd be right about that; however, the claim that Apple is somehow deliberately enabling this loss of sales -- although very likely -- is a subtle point. You can also see how Microsoft themselves, by strong-arming OEMs, have created a trap for themselves to where a company that Does Not Need Microsoft -- such as Apple -- can exploit that gap.
The more I look at it, the more impressed I am with the evil brilliance behind Apple's move. And yes, I meant it when I said "evil." This was truly devious. It benefits all of us in the short run, but in the long run it benefits Apple the most.
Hey does anyone know if it triple or more boots? Can you do Linux and Win98 too for example? Or is this a XP only cahoots deal?
Anyone else intrigued by the thought of the a grand all-in-one machine that incorporates the best of Windows, Mac, and Linux?
I could really see myself one day throwing down the cash for a really powerful Mac with a massive hard drive and throwing Windows and Linux on there. Windows for gaming, Mac for apps, and Linux for programming. This idea excites me to know end.
This article really hit me on the nose. I'm a gamer who's always been looking for a good reason to switch to Mac, and this really is the perfect answer. Too bad I just bought two new PCs about a year ago...it's gonna be a while before I make the big switch, but I'd guess I definitly will one day.
The day where I can boot Fedora, Final Cut Pro, and Halo 2 all on the same machine will be a happy day indeed...
See, the same rationale could have been made about Linux games. Yet tell that to Loki games. Oh wait, they went out of business, didn't they?
See, the issue isn't one of right vs wrong, nor game _developpers_ assuming that everyone has Windows. Noone is that stupid. The issue is simple one of market size and _publishers_ deciding if it promises much of a ROI.
To illustrate it, even without booting Windows, you didn't see many games released for Macs. Sure, there was the occasional big company deciding to go the extra mile and release a Mac version too, but by and large most publishers ignored the Mac market completely. At best they did't have anything against someone else porting their 3 year old PC game to the Mac. (I.e., long after it ceased making any revenue on the PC, so, sure, knock yourself out.) But that was about the extent of the importance the Mac market had for the average game publisher.
Why? Because it just wasn't a big enough market. There was no "but you could pay $300 for Windows" rationalization involved or anything. They didn't actually _care_ if you paid an extra $300 for Windows or for a game console or just stopped playing games completely. All that mattered is whether the market size promised enough of a ROI or not. Period.
So the same will happen here. If enough of the new people buying Macs also buy Windows, well, then the effective market has't really grown much.
And again, it won't be a matter of assumptions ("surely they all bought Windows"), it won't be a matter of morals ("surely it's morally OK to tell someone to go pay $300 for Windows to be able to play games"), it will just be a matter of money. It will just be measured in copies sold and dollars income.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.