PDA

View Full Version : Boot Camp and Mac Game Developers?


MacRumors
Apr 5, 2006, 11:51 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With Apple's release of Boot Camp (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060405094135.shtml) to allow Intel Macs to boot into Windows XP, many users are enthusiastic about being able to run many Windows-only games that have not yet been ported to the Mac.

This added capability, however, may cause most uncertainty to current Mac game developers who have always had an uphill battle in providing timely ports to the Mac platform. Some fear that bringing widely available Windows XP booting ability to the Intel Macs may reduce incentive to produce for the Mac-specific market.

InsideMacGames posts (http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ID=13177) several reactions from some current Mac developers. Reactions appear to be mixed. Brad Oliver of Aspyr Media offers these thoughts:

From a business standpoint, I suspect Aspyr is, in the short term, going to continue releasing Mac ports as before and see where the market takes us. If Mac sales tank, we've got enough revenue coming in from PC and console ports that it probably won't hurt the company too much and we'd just focus on the other platforms. It's possible that the Mac market share could increase so dramatically that the demand for Mac games increases enough to offset the costs of the loss of sales to dual-booting, but I'm not so optimistic about that.

laidbackliam
Apr 5, 2006, 11:56 PM
i' so unsure of what is going to happen wiht mac games. i don't play many games, but i'd like to see the games developed for mac, not windows xp/vista

pavetheforest
Apr 5, 2006, 11:56 PM
i want the new iBook

glowingstar
Apr 5, 2006, 11:57 PM
cause for worry..... unless, of course, mac sales really do take off.... i hope there is some sort of "halo effect" now that macs can easily run windows.

excalibur313
Apr 6, 2006, 12:00 AM
A mac user will always get a mac version of a game over a pc. The only instance where that wouldn't happen is if he or she already had a pc version for some other purpose which isn't as common.

jamdr
Apr 6, 2006, 12:04 AM
I buy very few games but if Mac games continued to be made, I'll continue to buy them.

It would be bad for Apple if companies like Aspyr did stop producing Mac games. It's just a bad user experience to be forced to boot into some different operating system to run a game, or any other piece of software. What would people new to OS X think about that? It would definitely be a major turn-off. I can just see it now:

Installation instructions:
Windows:
1. Insert CD and double click installer.

Mac:
1. Restart your computer and hold down the option key.
2. When prompted to select an operating system, choose Windows XP
3. Follow instructions for Windows

:(

badmofo9000
Apr 6, 2006, 12:07 AM
Mac games are dead. I see little point for publishers to port new games to the platform. I really think this dual boot idea will take off. I don't think there will be enough people buying the mac version 6 months later when they can have the pc version now if they install windows.

Aaon
Apr 6, 2006, 12:07 AM
A mac user will always get a mac version of a game over a pc. The only instance where that wouldn't happen is if he or she already had a pc version for some other purpose which isn't as common.

This may be true, but remember that oftentimes there is 6 month or more lag between the PC version and Mac version of a game. I'm not convinced that people will wait 6 months to experience a game when they could run down to Best Buy, pick it up, and play it on the day it is released. There are no UI advantages in running the game in OS X versus in Windows. While I would prefer the native Mac version for stability and easy access, I suspect that Boot Camp may indeed have a negative effect on Mac game producers.

Austin.xstone
Apr 6, 2006, 12:10 AM
All this, to me is good news, solves all my problems, and Games? Well I would still rather see the games on OS X. I mean who wants to look at Windows anyway?!?

Yes all sounds good - Now all I need is a New Intel iBook to try it on! :rolleyes:

nagromme
Apr 6, 2006, 12:13 AM
I can understand the uncertainty in the minds of Mac game companies. But some of the developer comments in the same article were much more positive, and I choose to be optimistic and agree with those!

Re general fears that development of Mac-native apps will diminish: no way. That will INCREASE because of Boot Camp.

Demand for native Mac apps will increase faster than ever now, and demand drives sales. Developers won't turn away now!

The only way demand for native Mac apps would decrease is if the number of Mac users willing to "settle for Windows" increases FASTER than the overall growth of the Mac OS X user base.

Settling for Windows means rebooting, giving up iLife and all your Mac apps, abandoning the security and ease of use of OS X, and--don't forget--PAYING for a copy of Windows. That's too much to settle for unless you have to. And then you'll do it only WHEN you have to. Not by choice. You will still demand OS X and OS X apps.

So I see the number of Mac users willing to settle for Windows being VERY small, increased only slightly by people now choosing Boot Camp Macs for their next "PC." (A great many of them will end up using Mac OS X even if that wasn't their intent at first.)

Meanwhile I see the overall Mac user base growing a LOT--and growing even more because Boot Camp gives switchers a reassuring safety net.

Result: more Mac OS X users, more Mac OS X apps. Not less.

Now, re games specifically: gamers are the most likely to "settle" for Windows because you're not using the OS at that time, and you're not trying to collaborate among multiple apps. Windows is "good enough" at that point, if you accept the inconvenience of having to reboot just to game. Except for three factors:

1. When you go online to game in Windows (or download content, or chat/email to set up a match, or browse for hints/cheats), you are subject to Windows malware.

2. To game in Windows, you must buy--and take the time to install--a copy of Windows. Mac games don't need that. Mac games will run right off the shelf.

3. If you find Windows gaming acceptable (which I can totally understand), then you ALREADY were gaming in Windows. You owned a PC on the side. Mac owners buying Windows games is NOT anything new with boot camp--it was a factor Mac game companies were already contending with. At least now Mac game companies will have an ever-increasing base to sell to.

I trust the game companies to know more about all this than I, but I tend to think the overall growth of the Mac platform will ultimately help Mac game developers more than the harm done by Intel and Boot Camp. The good will outweigh the bad, and we'll all have more games.

I know I for one will gladly wait a few months more for a native Mac port of a game! Will everyone? No. Will everyone buy a copy of Windows because they can't wait? No. All that is needed is enough new Mac users who want Mac games--and I expect that will happen.

MacsomJRR
Apr 6, 2006, 12:14 AM
It does sound kinda sad when you put it like that. Hard working mac game developers, struggling against the giant that is Windows XP and it's abundance of high quality gaming titles in every available category known to gaming man and woman.

ho hum...

BRING ON THE XP GAMING BABY! WOO HOO!

Eidorian
Apr 6, 2006, 12:15 AM
Yeah, I'm sticking with my OS X games. I don't want to spend my money to dual boot. Partitioning sucks and I don't want to kill my drive.

~Shard~
Apr 6, 2006, 12:16 AM
I don't see what the big deal is about this. Everyone always seems to say, "Macs aren't for games", "if you want to play games get a PC", etc. etc., so this will just reinforce this belief. Mac developers will not want to develop ports for Mac, since Mac users can just play the Windows versions immediately, as opposed to having to wait months and months for the Mac versions. I think many gamers just want to play their games, so if they can do it through Windows on their Mac, who cares? Why would they even need Mac ports? Then again, there will be those people who don't decide to go the Boot Camp route, and still want to play Mac ports of games since they don't have Windows on their Macs - for them, this could suck. ;) :cool:

mproud
Apr 6, 2006, 12:19 AM
You'd have to buy Windows first.
Nobody wants to do that.

Also...
Boot Camp is beta software. (Would you play a beta game?)

darwen
Apr 6, 2006, 12:19 AM
Good point. Why would anyone develop for OSX anymore? Most people will be running Windows and OSX now. While many would prefer to stay in OSX, lets be honest... this is happening for a reason... it is easier to just adopt windows on our same great Mac machines.

I perfer to run OSX but there are programs I need for windows and if I can keep my mac only programs on the same machine... I dont really mind switching back. At least every once in a while ;) .

Sharewaredemon
Apr 6, 2006, 12:21 AM
You'd have to buy Windows first.
Nobody wants to do that.

Also...
Boot Camp is beta software. (Would you play a beta game?)

Such a good point, but how hard is it to pirate Windows?

I'm serious I don't know because I've never had the need (mmmm apple lifer).

oingoboingo
Apr 6, 2006, 12:22 AM
I don't see what the big deal is about this. Everyone always seems to say, "Macs aren't for games", "if you want to play games get a PC", etc. etc., so this will just reinforce this belief. Mac developers will not want to develop ports for Mac, since Mac users can just play the Windows versions immediately, as opposed to having to wait months and months for the Mac versions. I think many gamers just want to play their games, so if they can do it through Windows on their Mac, who cares? Why would they even need Mac ports? Then again, there will be those people who don't decide to go the Boot Camp route, and still want to play Mac ports of games since they don't have Windows on their Macs - for them, this could suck. ;) :cool:

I agree completely with what you've just said...and that is the point of concern. Mac users will be tempted by the immediate availability of Windows games, instead of waiting months and months for native ports. So who will care? The Mac game developers! This is going to be a tough time for them, hence the topic of the article.

~Shard~
Apr 6, 2006, 12:24 AM
I agree completely with what you've just said...and that is the point of concern. Mac users will be tempted by the immediate availability of Windows games, instead of waiting months and months for native ports. So who will care? The Mac game developers! This is going to be a tough time for them, hence the topic of the article.

And I agree with you. ;) Yes, I am not saying this is a good thing for the Mac developers, but instead a harsh reality they may soon have to face whether they'd like to or not. :cool:

nagromme
Apr 6, 2006, 12:25 AM
Such a good point, but how hard is it to pirate Windows?
Not sure, but it is done.

Then again, how much money was any gaming company ever going to make from pirates? The people willing to steal are probably not the most profitable customers to go after.

Eidorian
Apr 6, 2006, 12:26 AM
Not sure, but it is done.

Then again, how much money was any gaming company ever going to make from pirates? The people willing to steal are probably not the most profitable customers to go after.I think there are just cracked keys or stolen corporate ones. That or just plain hacked versions of Windows. Don't expect all your updates to work though.

Undecided
Apr 6, 2006, 12:29 AM
Don't worry about the lack of Mac games - just get a Nintendo Revolution later this year. If it turns out to be as good as it seems, then the Revolution will be the Mac of game consoles.

oingoboingo
Apr 6, 2006, 12:30 AM
And I agree with you. ;) Yes, I am not saying this is a good thing for the Mac developers, but instead a harsh reality they may soon have to face whether they'd like to or not. :cool:

Great! Everyone is in agreement then! :D

Sharewaredemon
Apr 6, 2006, 12:31 AM
Not sure, but it is done.

Then again, how much money was any gaming company ever going to make from pirates? The people willing to steal are probably not the most profitable customers to go after.

Hmmm that makes sense, I can't see there being a lot of people out there who are serious enough about gaming, and dedicated to using a Mac wanting to purchase a copy of Windows just so they can play games.

Legitimate Mac gamers (Read: ones who BUY their games) will likely continue to desire Mac ports. Hopefully the Mac game developers will not be squashed by Boot Camp.

yoda13
Apr 6, 2006, 12:33 AM
I miss the days already where Macs were different, where we had to wait for ports of games, where our processors were different, and where I felt good for using a Mac. I still love my Mac, I will always be an Apple fan, indeed I have never owned a computer that runs Windows. Part of me understands why Apple is doing this, but part of me is sad too. Oh well, I am not that much of a gamer anyway. Star Wars: Galaxies is the only reason I would ever consider doing this on any future Intel Mac that I might own.

Doctor Q
Apr 6, 2006, 12:35 AM
Think a few years down the road. Gamers like/need speed, so they are likely to have fairly new computers. That means the percentage of Mac users on Intel-based Macs will approach 100% faster than for the general population. And many of them will fork out the money for Windows software, since they will already have the hardware to run it and there are many Windows-only games.

Now put yourself in a game developer's shoes. It's harder than before to justify the incremental development and support costs to sell a Mac OS X version because many of your customers can already use the Windows version.

Object-X
Apr 6, 2006, 12:37 AM
I don't see a big loss here. Game selection on the Mac platform is and has always been dismal. I can't remember the last Mac ported game of any note, can you? I've seen many interesting titles come and go that never got ported and the games that do leave me scratching my head. Why that game? Do peopel actually play that? The coolest PC games are not on the Mac, with a couple exceptions, and there is no word indicating they ever will be. I don't know who's fault that is, but if the Mac gaming industry disappears I don't think many will even notice it's gone. Go get a PS3 and be happy.

zzcoop
Apr 6, 2006, 12:37 AM
While many would prefer to stay in OSX, lets be honest... this is happening for a reason... it is easier to just adopt windows on our same great Mac machines.

You couldn't pay me enough to adopt Windows.

bluebomberman
Apr 6, 2006, 12:50 AM
nagromme, I usually agree with you, but not this time.

Most games I've tried have run pretty poorly on my Rev. A iMac (LOTR: Return of the King has a memory leak that eventually kills it under Tiger, Star Wars: KOTOR has awful graphics glitches under Tiger, the Homeworld 2 demo ran at 2fps, the Battlefield demo ran <15fps). There's plenty of horror stories about SimCity 4 and some griping about WoW frame rates under PPC systems in the gaming section of the MacRumors forum. Diablo II occasionally stutters on me for no discernable reason. And there's a bunch of games I haven't been able to play because I'm using a Mac: Freedom Force Vs. The Third Reich, Magic: The Gathering Online, Silent Storm, and all my Windows games from the past 10 years.

I've only been satisfied with the performance of these games on my Mac: Warcraft III, the Neverwinter Nights demo, the Halo demo, and Lego Star Wars.

Sorry, but I'm tired of waiting 6-18 months for a port and paying a price premium when I know the Windows version is sitting in the bargain bin and will give me better performance.

Porting companies like Aspyr are nothing more than middlemen to me. Apple has now let me cut them out.

Doctor Q
Apr 6, 2006, 12:54 AM
You couldn't pay me enough to adopt Windows.If there enough people like you, developers would have more incentive to stay cross-platform. But you are a minority and it just got a lot easier for Mac users to use Windows.

RevMedia
Apr 6, 2006, 12:57 AM
I am playing Battlefield 2 on my MacBook right now!!! And it is amaziing way better than any availible PC Laptop on the market let me know if you guys want some screen of my benchmarks or anything!!!

Lollypop
Apr 6, 2006, 12:58 AM
I personally think the entire dual boot thing is a risk on apple's part, and I hope that other developers dont have the same view as aspyr. If this does increase hardware sales for apple they should take that money and put it into software development and try to make it easier to write mac os x software. If the dual boot thing has a negative impact on development then the Mac os is dead... I love to mac os to much to even think about it!!!

Spidermanjohn
Apr 6, 2006, 01:03 AM
Games are for kids and dedicated devices. Mac and Windows are for productivity anything else is masturbatory.

oingoboingo
Apr 6, 2006, 01:05 AM
Hmmm that makes sense, I can't see there being a lot of people out there who are serious enough about gaming, and dedicated to using a Mac wanting to purchase a copy of Windows just so they can play games.

Legitimate Mac gamers (Read: ones who BUY their games) will likely continue to desire Mac ports. Hopefully the Mac game developers will not be squashed by Boot Camp.

I still desire OS X games. But I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face. According to your definition, I'm a legitimate Mac gamer. I've bought Quake 3, UT2004, Homeworld2, Call of Duty, Call of Duty: United Offensive, Battlefield 1942, Doom3, and World of Warcraft. I upgraded the Radeon 9600 card in my PowerMac G5 to a 256MB Radeon 9800 Special Edition purely to increase gaming performance. I don't have a PC for gaming. Hell, I don't even have an Xbox anymore...I sold it about 9 months ago. If I want to play a game, it happens on the Mac.

That said, for me this is the end of the road for my buying of Mac games. Why would I wait months (and sometimes years) for a company like Aspyr to deliver a port of a game, which may or may not be network compatible with the PC version, when I can (now with Apple's full blessing and software support) simply purchase the Windows version of the game the day it is released, reboot, and start playing? Not only that, but I can walk into any gaming shop in the city and I can leave with the game in hand. No more having to drive halfway across town to go to an Apple dealer, or ordering the game in off the web.

If companies like Aspyr can start cutting deals with the games developers so that they co-release Windows and OS X versions of a game at the same time, then sure...I'll buy the OS X version. If, for all other things being equal, the Windows and OS X versions are comparable, I will of course support the OS X developers. But I really don't think this is going to happen.

EDIT: I just wanted to add something. People are talking about the inconvenience of rebooting. Yes, it isn't ideal. But I'll take the relatively minor inconvenience of rebooting instead of the rather major inconvenience of waiting for months for a game to be ported to OS X and then paying full price for it when the Windows version is in the bargain bin...and that's assuming the OS X version is released at all!

ezekielrage_99
Apr 6, 2006, 01:06 AM
This is good news, when I get my new Intel Mac I'll be able to run 3D Studio MAX, Combustion and some games on it..... dual boot rocks

I just really glad to see that Apple has embraced the idea of dual boot systems because quite a few users out there were really wanting/needing it, now no one can say, well you can't do that on a Mac.

I'm also tempted to laugh at those hackers out there trying to get a dual boot before Apple..... it brings a smile to my face :D

And does this mean that Apple has made Virtual PC redundant?

QCassidy352
Apr 6, 2006, 01:09 AM
If there enough people like you, developers would have more incentive to stay cross-platform. But you are a minority and it just got a lot easier for Mac users to use Windows.

I really don't know about that. First, because I don't want to run windows at all. Second, because I like my OS X apps and set up... that's why I have a mac in the first place. The thought of rebooting every time I want to play a game for an hour is totally unappealing.

I'm glad macs can do this now, but honestly, it's going to be annoying as heck to switch back and forth, and I imagine most mac users are going to want to stay in OS X unless they really need XP.

Anyone remember the days of dual boot 9/X? I just picked one and stuck with it for days or weeks at a time because I don't like rebooting and I don't like adjusting to a new set-up once I have an OS configured just how I like it.

It's better to be able to dual boot than not to be able to... but let's be honest. Dual booting sucks.

dakis
Apr 6, 2006, 01:11 AM
Lokigames, a company that ported games to Linux, went out of business a couple of months after Transgaming released their software for running Windows games on Linux. The exact same thing will happen to Mac game companies.

greenstork
Apr 6, 2006, 01:12 AM
Hmmm that makes sense, I can't see there being a lot of people out there who are serious enough about gaming, and dedicated to using a Mac wanting to purchase a copy of Windows just so they can play games.

Legitimate Mac gamers (Read: ones who BUY their games) will likely continue to desire Mac ports. Hopefully the Mac game developers will not be squashed by Boot Camp.

I'm a legitimate Mac gamer and there is no way I would choose to wait 6 months to a year for a mac port of the same game. I've been dying to play Civilization 4 and Half Life for some time now. Too bad for Mac game developers unfortunately, but that's the danger with a product like Boot Camp.

Now everyday productivity and creative apps are an entirely different story. These apps rely on the OS much more heavily than interface independent games. I will always buy a Mac version of these products, and I have no problem waiting 6 months for a Mac port. I don't want to create my workflow in Windows, yuck....

greenstork
Apr 6, 2006, 01:13 AM
I miss the days already where Macs were different, where we had to wait for ports of games, where our processors were different, and where I felt good for using a Mac. I still love my Mac, I will always be an Apple fan, indeed I have never owned a computer that runs Windows. Part of me understands why Apple is doing this, but part of me is sad too. Oh well, I am not that much of a gamer anyway. Star Wars: Galaxies is the only reason I would ever consider doing this on any future Intel Mac that I might own.

And that one Windows version of a game you buy is money out of the pockets of Mac game developers and a further disincentive to porting games on the Mac.

I don't see a big loss here. Game selection on the Mac platform is and has always been dismal. I can't remember the last Mac ported game of any note, can you? ...

Halo, Unreal Tournament, Doom III, World of Warcraft to name a few.

dakis
Apr 6, 2006, 01:17 AM
You'd have to buy Windows first.
Nobody wants to do that.

Also...
Boot Camp is beta software. (Would you play a beta game?)

well, your arguments are flawed.

1. RIGHT NOW you may need to buy Windows first. In a couple of months you won't. Just have a look at what Transgaming/Cedega did for Linux - they'll definitely do it for Mac OS X as well. Also: most people have Windows at home anyway.

2. Boot Camp may be beta, but Windows (at least according to Microsoft) isn't. Once Windows is installed (which works extremely well using Boot Camp), nobody cares about the beta status. Apart from that: boot camp ain't gonna be beta forever.

3. YES I would play a beta game if it rocked.

Arnaud
Apr 6, 2006, 01:19 AM
...Game developping is one thing, but what is the next step ?

Many users already mention being happy at the thought of running 3D software on Windows (because the choice is bigger, some apps are better), hence that might be the end of the few 3D apps ported on Os X which were competing on the market.

And then ? What about Adobe ? "You've got a PC, run the Windows version of Photoshop; you've got a mac, reboot and run the Windows version of Photoshop", cheaper for development.

And when all your apps are running under Windows, will you really re-boot that often to just play around with OsX and a few apps ? "Oh crap, I need to retouch this photo again before sending it with Mail, let's just reboot for a second". Uhh :(

I don't really see this whole business under a good angle. I'd rather see Windows running inside of Os X, for instance, without a reboot needed, that would bring less of a need.

I'm glad with OsX only, because I don't run games on the Mac, but I'm afraid that the Windows-booters help OsX be left behind.

greenstork
Apr 6, 2006, 01:20 AM
I still desire OS X games. But I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face. According to your definition, I'm a legitimate Mac gamer. I've bought Quake 3, UT2004, Homeworld2, Call of Duty, Call of Duty: United Offensive, Battlefield 1942, Doom3, and World of Warcraft. I upgraded the Radeon 9600 card in my PowerMac G5 to a 256MB Radeon 9800 Special Edition purely to increase gaming performance. I don't have a PC for gaming. Hell, I don't even have an Xbox anymore...I sold it about 9 months ago. If I want to play a game, it happens on the Mac.

That said, for me this is the end of the road for my buying of Mac games. Why would I wait months (and sometimes years) for a company like Aspyr to deliver a port of a game, which may or may not be network compatible with the PC version, when I can (now with Apple's full blessing and software support) simply purchase the Windows version of the game the day it is released, reboot, and start playing? Not only that, but I can walk into any gaming shop in the city and I can leave with the game in hand. No more having to drive halfway across town to go to an Apple dealer, or ordering the game in off the web.

If companies like Aspyr can start cutting deals with the games developers so that they co-release Windows and OS X versions of a game at the same time, then sure...I'll buy the OS X version. If, for all other things being equal, the Windows and OS X versions are comparable, I will of course support the OS X developers. But I really don't think this is going to happen.

You nailed it, I'm in the same boat as you. I've upgraded my graphics card for gaming perf. and I purchase 8-12 games per year. I'm not going to wait for slower glitchy ports when the Windows version is already out.

darwen
Apr 6, 2006, 01:25 AM
You couldn't pay me enough to adopt Windows.

I should have expected as much from a mac forum. I am as avid of a mac user as anyone else here. You must be crazy though if you think OSX is the only way. Why don't you try being a little more open minded. Windows is a mess but I remember hating OSX when I first switched to it. There are may things about macs that many people hate. Even members of a mac forum can be open minded enough to understand that.

JoeKarame
Apr 6, 2006, 01:26 AM
I can see absolutely no downside to having Windows running well on a Mac. Point blank it's not going to stop me from using Mac specific software - Keynotes is a big example, but also MS Office is so much better on Mac compared to the windows equivalent it's untrue.

If I can play some PC games with ease on the machine too, then so much the better.

But really, it's nothing much more than a novelty for me. I'm happier sticking to console gaming at the moment, and leave my Mac to do everything else. Considering Vista is looking more and more like a lame duck, I'm longing to see what Leopard is going to do for the machine.

Sharewaredemon
Apr 6, 2006, 01:31 AM
greenstork and oingoboingo, I wasn't sure if legitimate gamers would want drop the cash on a legit copy of Windows to game on, it seems like if you guys are willing, and others, Mac ports of games will likely die off.

I don't see this as a bad or good thing, although I think mac users deserve to be able to play games as well as PC users.

mlrproducts
Apr 6, 2006, 01:37 AM
Why all this worry for Mac game developers? I mean, when was the last time they were consistently coming out with good games that were appearing on Windows at the same time? Blizzard does good with Warcraft, and Aspyr is alright at bring an OK amount of titles to the Mac (albeit slowly). Other than those two, who is doing anything for us?

As a consumer I've always felt shafted by game companies producing (or choosing not to) for the Mac. Survival of the fittest - put out a good product for a fair price at the right time and the market will work itself out. I don't feel like I owe them anything! POWER TO THE CONSUMER!

Billy Boo Bob
Apr 6, 2006, 01:39 AM
You couldn't pay me enough to adopt Windows.
Amen, brother. When I get an Intel Mac I'll probably go ahead and install it for those times when I have to run it (I'd actually rather see a VPC style solution, though, that runs at or near native hardware speed), but I sure as heck won't adopt, or adapt. Been there... tried that... hated it.

mandis
Apr 6, 2006, 01:43 AM
I can understand the uncertainty in the minds of Mac game companies. But some of the developer comments in the same article were much more positive, and I choose to be optimistic and agree with those!

Good for you! Mac games will suffer with boot camp and that's a fact. Anyone in his/her right mind will boot into windows to play their games, as there are currently only 8-9 proper osx native games for the Intel Macs. There are thousands of amazing games for windows right now!


Demand for native Mac apps will increase faster than ever now, and demand drives sales. Developers won't turn away now!

I disagree! Now that you can run windows natively with the support of apple there is absolutely no reason why developers should port any more apps for OSX. Remember the AutoCAD and 3d Studio MAX petitions? No way AutoDesk will ever even consider
Porting anything to OSX anymore!

The only way demand for native Mac apps would decrease is if the number of Mac users willing to "settle for Windows" increases FASTER than the overall growth of the Mac OS X user base.

If Windows users start buying the imacs and MBPs just because they prefer their looks over the Sony and Dell equivalents then it wont be long before OSX users are in the minority.

Settling for Windows means rebooting, giving up iLife and all your Mac apps, abandoning the security and ease of use of OS X, and--don't forget--PAYING for a copy of Windows. That's too much to settle for unless you have to. And then you'll do it only WHEN you have to. Not by choice. You will still demand OS X and OS X apps.

You do realize that an OS is only a means to an end right? I mean what good is an OS when you have nothing to run on it? It's pretty pointless defending a mouse cursor and a window manager don't you think? Windows has A LOT more software, which is readily available. OSX could never compete with that. As for iLife... I'd choose ACDC over iPhoto anytime!

So I see the number of Mac users willing to settle for Windows being VERY small, increased only slightly by people now choosing Boot Camp Macs for their next "PC." (A great many of them will end up using Mac OS X even if that wasn't their intent at first.)

OSX is a very visually pleasing OS, however if time and budget are tight then this kind of luxury is not really a priority. Besides you'll find that not many people are willing to become Apple's crusaders anymore.

Meanwhile I see the overall Mac user base growing a LOT--and growing even more because Boot Camp gives switchers a reassuring safety net.

Result: more Mac OS X users, more Mac OS X apps. Not less.

Now, re games specifically: gamers are the most likely to "settle" for Windows because you're not using the OS at that time, and you're not trying to collaborate among multiple apps. Windows is "good enough" at that point, if you accept the inconvenience of having to reboot just to game. Except for three factors:

1. When you go online to game in Windows (or download content, or chat/email to set up a match, or browse for hints/cheats), you are subject to Windows malware.

2. To game in Windows, you must buy--and take the time to install--a copy of Windows. Mac games don't need that. Mac games will run right off the shelf.

3. If you find Windows gaming acceptable (which I can totally understand), then you ALREADY were gaming in Windows. You owned a PC on the side. Mac owners buying Windows games is NOT anything new with boot camp--it was a factor Mac game companies were already contending with. At least now Mac game companies will have an ever-increasing base to sell to.

I trust the game companies to know more about all this than I, but I tend to think the overall growth of the Mac platform will ultimately help Mac game developers more than the harm done by Intel and Boot Camp. The good will outweigh the bad, and we'll all have more games.

I know I for one will gladly wait a few months more for a native Mac port of a game! Will everyone? No. Will everyone buy a copy of Windows because they can't wait? No. All that is needed is enough new Mac users who want Mac games--and I expect that will happen.

The rest of your comments sound like words of comfort to me...

PS> having said that i do pray that all your comments come true! :o

BlueRevolution
Apr 6, 2006, 01:48 AM
You couldn't pay me enough to adopt Windows.

you could pay me enough. say, if you were to pay me enough that I could then go buy a maxed out MBP and Power Mac, with 3 30" ACDs and the works... I'd happily adopt Windows then ;)

Lollypop
Apr 6, 2006, 02:02 AM
Good for you! Mac games will suffer with boot camp and that's a fact. Anyone in his/her right mind will boot into windows to play their games, as there are currently only 8-9 proper osx native games for the Intel Macs. There are thousands of amazing games for windows right now!




I disagree! Now that you can run windows natively with the support of apple there is absolutely no reason why developers should port any more apps for OSX. Remember the AutoCAD and 3d Studio MAX petitions? No way AutoDesk will ever even consider
Porting anything to OSX anymore!



If Windows users start buying the imacs and MBPs just because they prefer their looks over the Sony and Dell equivalents then it wont be long before OSX users are in the minority.



You do realize that an OS is only a means to an end right? I mean what good is an OS when you have nothing to run on it? It's pretty pointless defending a mouse cursor and a window manager don't you think? Windows has A LOT more software, which is readily available. OSX could never compete with that. As for iLife... I'd choose ACDC over iPhoto anytime!



OSX is a very visually pleasing OS, however if time and budget are tight then this kind of luxury is not really a priority. Besides you'll find that not many people are willing to become Apple's crusaders anymore.



The rest of your comments sound like words of comfort to me...

PS> having said that i do pray that all your comments come true! :o


Amen brother! Finally someone that does look at the possible down side while still keeping a open mind!

MacsomJRR
Apr 6, 2006, 02:03 AM
you could pay me enough. say, if you were to pay me enough that I could then go buy a maxed out MBP and Power Mac, with 3 30" ACDs and the works... I'd happily adopt Windows then ;)

Throw in a stack of recordable DVDs and I'm sold:)

BudongBait
Apr 6, 2006, 02:15 AM
...Game developping is one thing, but what is the next step ?

Many users already mention being happy at the thought of running 3D software on Windows (because the choice is bigger, some apps are better), hence that might be the end of the few 3D apps ported on Os X which were competing on the market.

And then ? What about Adobe ? "You've got a PC, run the Windows version of Photoshop; you've got a mac, reboot and run the Windows version of Photoshop", cheaper for development.

And when all your apps are running under Windows, will you really re-boot that often to just play around with OsX and a few apps ? "Oh crap, I need to retouch this photo again before sending it with Mail, let's just reboot for a second". Uhh :(

I don't really see this whole business under a good angle. I'd rather see Windows running inside of Os X, for instance, without a reboot needed, that would bring less of a need.

I'm glad with OsX only, because I don't run games on the Mac, but I'm afraid that the Windows-booters help OsX be left behind.

This is exactly why I cried when I heard Apple was going to Intel. Programmers are human. Humans are Lazy. Why develop two of anything if the Mac users can run your windoze version?

Yes you could argue that the situation has not changed from before the switch, but you would be wrong. Once full speed side by side operation has begun, our 3rd party apps will migrate to windows, save Apple's ofcourse.

Sure some of us will still code for OSx (I'll be codeing for Mac it till the day I (or it) dies). But how long will we diehard mac users hold out?

Not long I fear, at best perhaps relegated to a linux like existence.

I weep.

(And yes, I finally registered after being a lurker for god knows how long. That should tell you something too - As I get into my flame proof suit)

-Budong Bait

And clearly I have some learning to do on these new fangeled forum thingies..

Alexander
Apr 6, 2006, 02:21 AM
Such a good point, but how hard is it to pirate Windows?

Actually really quite easy. (http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3402872) Updates work too with a line of Javascript. I'm really surprised to see Apple open this Pandora's Box, though I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later after their hand was forced to move to Intel. Apple did it the smart way by making most home users able to work with only Apple software, so software availability on the Mac side isn't really a big issue most of the time. After today's announcement, I definitely see a lot of people picking up Macs in the short and medium term, but how this affects long term success of the OS X platform is kind of up in the air. I am getting more optimistic about the result the more I think about it, though. True virtualization is all but guaranteed at this point, and even if people end up running Windows apps on Macs running Mac OS X, who cares? Apple cleverly gets just as much revenue from the hardware. It's like, my Mac can do everything your PC can do, and then some, and with more style to boot. Only the absolute worst pennypinchers will stick with the ultra-cheap manufacturers, and that's fine by me.

The key difference between Apple's situation and OS/2, Linux, etc., is that Apple sells good, inexpensive hardware, and has an established suite of highly useful and affordable applications (most of which are included with the hardware purchase anyway).

MacMyDay
Apr 6, 2006, 02:28 AM
I for one will not be installing Windows on my personal computer, and even for my staff's computer won't bother (for IE6/7 etc). Virtual PC will still be used as a more safe and easier method, as I wouldn't buy a Mac if I wanted to use all of the Windows applications, yet there are certain things you can't get away from, and hence Virtual PC.

Also, I think it won't do the Mac game industry great, but how many people actually own (a legal) copy of Windows XP and own a Mac? It would mean I'd be doing some work on OS X, and suddenly I'd need to close everything down, reboot, go into Windows XP, have a game, close it down, reboot, go back into OS X etc. No thanks.

Bonte
Apr 6, 2006, 02:30 AM
A mac user will always get a mac version of a game over a pc. The only instance where that wouldn't happen is if he or she already had a pc version for some other purpose which isn't as common.

I will indeed get a Mac game over the PC version but not when its on the market a year or two later and at 50$ when the PC version is on sale for 10$ or less. Game developers need to change there strategy, thats for sure. Sales will tank the first year because of this but it will grow when the publishers anticipates this good and finally treats osX as a worthy platform for gaming.

alienex
Apr 6, 2006, 02:33 AM
All im going to say is the mac gaming solution wasnt really a solution. Sure id be nice to have all games ported to mac in a timely fashion but its not happening. Boot Camp in my opinion is the best solution to gaming on a mac.

BlueRevolution
Apr 6, 2006, 03:01 AM
it's interesting to me that most of the game developers seemed to be more optomistic than people here.

I think it's a great thing, in the long term. Apple's market share can only increase from this, which means more pressure on developers to make simultaneous releases of games.

in the short term, good for us... we can now buy 3 year old games for $30 instead of $60, and of course play everything else under the sun. not so good for developers for the reasons mentioned above.

BUT, I can see MacSoft and Aspyr going to game developers and saying we need you to do simultaneous releases now, and we're going to have to charge the same across the board to stay competitive. we'll publish your Mac AND PC releases on the same disk and make sure your games get to the broadest possible market. OK, maybe that's a rather weak idea.

I guess it's now up to the developers to move with these rather interesting times. I know I'd rather play OS X native games, given the choice.

oingoboingo
Apr 6, 2006, 03:08 AM
Also, I think it won't do the Mac game industry great, but how many people actually own (a legal) copy of Windows XP and own a Mac? It would mean I'd be doing some work on OS X, and suddenly I'd need to close everything down, reboot, go into Windows XP, have a game, close it down, reboot, go back into OS X etc. No thanks.

I don't know about you, but when I play a game, I usually do it for a decent chunk of time...30 minutes at least, up to a number of hours. It's not something that I jump in and out of like I would do with Address Book, Mail or iCal. Does anybody actually use their computer in the way you are suggesting? Hands up all those gamers who enjoy a damned good 3.25 minute session of F.E.A.R or Battlefield 2!! Let's be honest. If you are <cough> "working", and you suddenly feel the need to goof off and start playing games, a minute or two of downtime while you reboot is the least of your concerns.

georeghudson
Apr 6, 2006, 03:18 AM
I don't like having two operating systems, I've tried it before and it really messes up your workflow and where your documents/email messages/bookmarks are. Features like spotlight can become useless if it can't find your work on your computer. Why can't apple create it's own 'sub OS' like Rosetta so that Windows programmes and games 'Just Work!' with OSX.

Bootcamp might pursuade switchers to change their computer but it won't change the way they work. Apple should not just give up and provide the competing OS just one short click away, can you see Dell providing that with their exclusive deals with Microsoft that had taken years to negociate?

Mac sales will go up in the short run but the users will not be loyal to the brand (apple's most valauble asset)

ibn
Apr 6, 2006, 03:38 AM
i didn't read the whole thread but...

wouldn't the ablility to dual-boot windows on mac force game makers to port mac verison of games sooner so that they do not lose that part of the market? why would i what for six months for a game to be ported when i can go to the store now and buy a windows verison. this should be a wake up call for all companies that make mac verison of anything to be quicker and more aware of us mac users. i love osx but i'm not going to wait forever or never for something to come out. just my opinion.

do you hear me image line?! make a mac verison of fruity loops... now!

AlmostThere
Apr 6, 2006, 04:23 AM
I disagree! Now that you can run windows natively with the support of apple there is absolutely no reason why developers should port any more apps for OSX. Remember the AutoCAD and 3d Studio MAX petitions? No way AutoDesk will ever even consider
Porting anything to OSX anymore!

If Windows users start buying the imacs and MBPs just because they prefer their looks over the Sony and Dell equivalents then it wont be long before OSX users are in the minority.

You do realize that an OS is only a means to an end right? I mean what good is an OS when you have nothing to run on it?

OSX is a very visually pleasing OS, however if time and budget are tight then this kind of luxury is not really a priority. Besides you'll find that not many people are willing to become Apple's crusaders anymore.

Broadly agree with all this.

From the point of view of a new Mac user, coming from Windows, the temptation is there to stick Windows on to the Mac. the only question is whether this is going to be simple enough. I see this right now, with the unused Mac Mini I have given to my mother. It is just sitting there unused for the last month despite her PC being old and knackered because, in her own words, she "just wants to get some work done". Learning a new environment is just too much hassle and effort, and before anyone mentions malware that has simply never been a problem. Stick Windows on there and you have a great little computer than she can use straight away.

From my own point of view, there is a significant overhead in running OS X when I am in Windows based offices. When some time down the line, I come to replace the PB with a MPB, the number one factor determining what OS I will run is what everybody else in my office is running. OS X is great and I prefer using it BUT in a largely Windows office it becomes a real hassle at times. The issue of rebooting would simply end up with me using Windows most of the time. OS X would slowly be relegated to the occasional use. OS X's saving grace has always been that by using a Mac I have to use OS X. Now that excuse is slipping away.

1macker1
Apr 6, 2006, 04:41 AM
I figure before the release of Lepord and Vista, Microsoft going into business with Apple Software division. The setup is just too perfect. Apple has been planning this move for while. We all thought it was no big deal when they dropped firewire support. When they made iTunes avail. for Windows users. MS will take over the SW division, with Apple SW group still doing the work. Apple keeps telling people how they are a hardware company.

Just my .02.

nubrandon
Apr 6, 2006, 04:42 AM
For all of us that use OSX, we will continue to use OSX. There are a million reasons we dont use windows besides its usual suckiness. Apples OS market share can only go up from here & will not reverse because of that fact. Mac users are among the biggest wackos out there. Who on this thread would stop using osx a macintel? (rhetorical so cram it fanboys)

The OSX user base wasnt exactly growing in leaps & bounds since OSX users most likely will not cross over to windows the developers will still be developing for the same users. The only acception are the game developers. They wont go down but will most likely be pushed under the osx ship.

748s
Apr 6, 2006, 05:00 AM
Apple haven't just randomly thrown boot camp out there to see what happens.
Since OS X Beta they have had a plan (whether it was plan A or plan B does not matter now).
I'm wondering where they are going with this.
No native mac games. It will happen.
Adobe will be watching this.
Have Apple decided to let software go and just do hardware?
If a windows version of Final Cut Studio (or any Pro Apps) appear it would look like the end of OS X.
Killed off by Apple.
N.A.B, WWDC and MWSF may shed further light on future directions.
Hopefully Apple see a big future for mac software, including OS X.

c-Row
Apr 6, 2006, 05:22 AM
3. YES I would play a beta game if it rocked.

Thousands of gamers played the Counterstrike betas back in the days before the official 1.0 version, because it rocked. ;)

bigandy
Apr 6, 2006, 05:23 AM
Such a good point, but how hard is it to pirate Windows?

I'm serious I don't know because I've never had the need (mmmm apple lifer).

it's about as hard, and as complicated, as eating cheese.

and i'm 100% serious.

Marx55
Apr 6, 2006, 05:27 AM
Expect market share to grow exponentially, and thus Mac OS X developments of all sorts of software, including games.

That is the move!!!

yukieiri
Apr 6, 2006, 05:31 AM
hm, i dont see the game developers dying out that quickly, there is still a huge PowerPC based market, who dont have the 'luxury' (and i use that term lightly) of running windows XP on their macs. well, outside of Virtual PC.

fair enough, the PowerPC architecture is being phased out by the intel architecture, but think, there are few users around who still run OS 9.x
even thought its been 'discontinued' ... i would expect it to take as long, if not longer for powerpc macs to die off. there would be some demand for games on OS X.

then of course you have the fanboys who wont run windows on their Mactels =)

the game developers for mac will die out at some point, it'll take a while, but i think it will happen.

gregorsamsa
Apr 6, 2006, 05:35 AM
Read most threads & judging by the wide array of opinions, the future most uncertain for OS X. Sure Apple will sell many more computers. Microsoft will sell many more Windows. But games developers will surely do less ports for Mac OS X. Financially they'll figure anyone that keen on playing latest games will now get Windows, why port? Mac owners never that big on games anyway. Fear is what if non-gaming developers follow suit. It won't happen over night, but the nightmare scenario is that in few years time we see Apple as No 1 PC computer seller shipping not with Mac OS X, but Windows. Horror of horrors.
Can't see myself buying Windows. Rome: Total War is the only game I'd want not currently on Mac .

tony3d
Apr 6, 2006, 05:40 AM
I don't get it. This just gives the software developers another reason to back out of the Mac market. Why should they develop for the Mac when the Mac runs Windows? Makes no sense. People say, but now you can make a direct comparison. To what? When there is no Mac OSX software to run. It would have made more sense to have Mac OSX run on Windows machines! That would have encouraged more Mac development. The first market to go will be games. Developers have been looking for any reason to pull out of that. Apps like Photoshop, Lightwave, and Maya will pull out and save a ton on costs. Why write for the Mac when the Mac run windows. I can here it now. "Do yoou have a Mac version"? Oh no, but your Mac now runs Windows, just boot up into that.

neymo
Apr 6, 2006, 05:43 AM
and what about that :
http://www.osx86project.org/

how many layers to stop osx running on PC ?:(

WeeManDan
Apr 6, 2006, 05:46 AM
Anyone know the size of the Mac gaming market, whilst I would like to think that it would one day just be developed alongside all the other platforms in the way that XBox, PS2/3 and Nintendo are at the same time. I think the problem will be the delay why wait six months for a Mac version, that just does not make sense and can anyone honestly say they would wait?

Marx55
Apr 6, 2006, 05:51 AM
The important thing is the interface. Developers will release Mac titles because that is what makes a Mac different. The more Mac market share, the more titles will be Mac native. And expect a huge market share boost right now!!!

hvfsl
Apr 6, 2006, 05:51 AM
Maybe most of you don't remember. But we have been here before.

In the late 90s, VirtualPC and RealPC allowed you to use your 3Dfx graphics card to play 3D PC games at a decent speed. People said it would be the end of Mac gaming. Well guess what, it wasn't.

I don't see this being the end of Mac gaming ether.

Some are saying that people won't be bothered to wait 6 months for the Mac version if they can get the PC version now. Well the 3D GTA games were released on the PS2 first, and then the PC/Xbox a few months later. Millions still bought the PC/Xbox versions even though the PS2 could be picked up for less than $100 2nd hand.

eXan
Apr 6, 2006, 06:04 AM
I buy very few games but if Mac games continued to be made, I'll continue to buy them.

It would be bad for Apple if companies like Aspyr did stop producing Mac games. It's just a bad user experience to be forced to boot into some different operating system to run a game, or any other piece of software. What would people new to OS X think about that? It would definitely be a major turn-off. I can just see it now:

Installation instructions:
Windows:
1. Insert CD and double click installer.

Mac:
1. Restart your computer and hold down the option key.
2. When prompted to select an operating system, choose Windows XP
3. Follow instructions for Windows

:(

Yes this is sad. I, however, will buy OS X version of the particular game if I have a choice between Win or OSX versions.

Boot Camp is a good thing for win-only games.

However, its unclear if porting companies like Aspyr will continue to work on Mac ports :(

minipri
Apr 6, 2006, 06:07 AM
Finally registered but watching macrumors for a while now...

On topic.
Let's all not forget that Mac games are more expensive! THAT will drive people over to the other side if you'll ask me. And by that I mean "gaming wise" ...for there is no other "other" side. :D

My two cents.

Greetz

MacGuy88
Apr 6, 2006, 06:16 AM
Look, try and load a program, ANY program on a windows pc.

Now try and load one on a mac. Note any differences?

One of the worst problems with Windows XP is that the more you use it (online), the slower and slower your computer performs. One thing I have noted since I converted is how Macs fly from the day you get it until... forever.

I am only 17. However, common sense tells me that because of Apple 110% solid machines, the same programs will still be "written" for Macs.

~ Brad

Lollypop
Apr 6, 2006, 06:21 AM
Finally registered but watching macrumors for a while now...

On topic.
Let's all not forget that Mac games are more expensive! THAT will drive people over to the other side if you'll ask me. And by that I mean "gaming wise" ...for there is no other "other" side. :D

My two cents.

Greetz

Welcome minipri!:D

Hopefully boot camp will force developers to make the ports availalbe faster at a lower cost, if they dont people will be driven to the other side (windows) and mac games will suffer greatly, if that happens lets not hope its the first of many sectors to go exclusively dark side! :p

mtrctyjoe
Apr 6, 2006, 06:28 AM
Dual Booting... simply put... is a pain the ^%$. No one likes to reboot. What this will do is get more MACS on the street and more people playing around with OSX - Windows XP offers an insurance policy. If MAC doubles their PC market share - which is an absolutely TERMENDOUS feet... (which they will do) - How can this be bad for Mac Gamers?

slooksterPSV
Apr 6, 2006, 06:29 AM
Well, I think more people may see this as a great combination. Designers, instead of using PC's may switch to Macs cause they have XP on one partition and Mac OS X on another. Learn OS X, Design on OS X, Play games on XP, then they may see OS X is so clean and smooth, why not run games purely on OS X. Not saying this is a designers stand point, but I'm wondering how this compromise and scalability w/different OS's is going to affect Apple's Market Share. If we could get...!!! Ok on Vista OpenGL is going to be cut (performance wise) 50% right? It is, why? Aero-glass. Apple has a better chance, maybe, if they get more companies to produce OpenGL games on their system. Forge a gamers market on OS X.

Ahh lots of struggles. By the way, if none of this makes sense is sounds stupid, it's 5:30 AM, I'm not sure what I'm saying, but sounds good to me. GO OS X!!!

zelmo
Apr 6, 2006, 06:32 AM
Most games these days have an online multiplayer component, which is usually a very big draw. Isn't one of the most frequently voiced reasons for switching that of 'escaping the virus and malware that is Windows online'?
I don't see myself booting Windows on my Mac so I can go on-line to play a game. I think most Mac people who are also gamers are already using a 2nd PC specifically for games, or are doing the console thing (like me).

Still, I don't think the future of Mac gaming looks all that rosy. It'll get worse when there is an easy way to efficiently virtualize Windows OS in Mac OS X instead of having to reboot.

BillHarrison
Apr 6, 2006, 06:33 AM
Wow, just wow! A couple posters got it right, but most are way off mark in here.

The state of OS X games is dismal. It was always dismal. I saw nothing that was going to magically make it "Not dismal".

Mac games are more expensive, much later, and perform worse than their windows counterparts. Most games were not being ported, irregardless of this. Look at it this way:

You are losing 3-5 crappy ports per year

You are gaining hundreds of quality games!

I mean, its all about economics at this point. The mac gaming companies that do most the ports (Aspyr) don't really put out much in the way of their own games. So, they will either step up to the plate, and start porting games in a better and more timely fashion, start producing their OWN games, for either platform, or go out of business.


As far as the rest, I man, come on. There have been petitions, etc. One guy mentioned,

"Now, even with the petitions, they will NEVER port to OS X!"

I have news for you buddy, even with petitions, and even without windows on a mac, they were never going to port to os x. Just wasn't going to happen.

This is opening worlds of opportunity for new mac users who were stuck on pc's due to having windows apps without mac compatibility.

It WILL put more macs in peoples hands, and as EVERYONE always says, apple is a hardware company.

Well, here ya go, a hardware company just made a move to increase HARDWARE sales. Isn't that what everyone has said all along?

Me personally, I think that this will certainly NOT lower OS X adoption, and if anything raise it, just due to it being in more peoples hands. They have to actively install windows, it does not come that way. Anyone doing that is intelligent enough to know what they are getting into.

As far as aspyr, and other mac game producers, welcome to the real world, where you don't have a "Built in" audience for your games anymore, and actually have to rely on pricing, quality, and game content to make sales!

BOO HOO!

slooksterPSV
Apr 6, 2006, 06:38 AM
Wow, just wow! A couple posters got it right, but most are way off mark in here.

The state of OS X games is dismal. It was always dismal. I saw nothing that was going to magically make it "Not dismal".

Mac games are more expensive, much later, and perform worse than their windows counterparts. Most games were not being ported, irregardless of this. Look at it this way:

You are losing 3-5 crappy ports per year

You are gaining hundreds of quality games!

I mean, its all about economics at this point. The mac gaming companies that do most the ports (Aspyr) don't really put out much in the way of their own games. So, they will either step up to the plate, and start porting games in a better and more timely fashion, start producing their OWN games, for either platform, or go out of business.


As far as the rest, I man, come on. There have been petitions, etc. One guy mentioned,

"Now, even with the petitions, they will NEVER port to OS X!"

I have news for you buddy, even with petitions, and even without windows on a mac, they were never going to port to os x. Just wasn't going to happen.

This is opening worlds of opportunity for new mac users who were stuck on pc's due to having windows apps without mac compatibility.

It WILL put more macs in peoples hands, and as EVERYONE always says, apple is a hardware company.

Well, here ya go, a hardware company just made a move to increase HARDWARE sales. Isn't that what everyone has said all along?

Me personally, I think that this will certainly NOT lower OS X adoption, and if anything raise it, just due to it being in more peoples hands. They have to actively install windows, it does not come that way. Anyone doing that is intelligent enough to know what they are getting into.

As far as aspyr, and other mac game producers, welcome to the real world, where you don't have a "Built in" audience for your games anymore, and actually have to rely on pricing, quality, and game content to make sales!

BOO HOO!

You can hope though, I mean that's where Mac OS X is struggling. In the business world, yes some do use macs, so that's not a problem (office apps), but with gaming it is a big issue. If Apple could figure out a way to enhance performance and make these games run exponentially faster, I think there may be a huge market shift. I already see one with the dual-booting and now virtualization in OS X (Leopard for the latter). There's a big change for Apple coming now. I can't say what, but something is going to change. If we get at least 10% more of the current Windoze population to Migrate to Mac OS X, we've won the battle. Heck even 5% isn't bad. - Gaming I could estimate 15% increase as a possibility.

Leoff
Apr 6, 2006, 06:52 AM
All I wanna know is if the Windows versions of Command and Conquer: Generals and Doom 3 will play on an Intel iMac or MacBookPro? I'm guessing Doom 3 won't work on an Intel MacMini because of the graphics requirements.

gregorsamsa
Apr 6, 2006, 06:58 AM
Still can't see why games developers won't drastically cut number of ports to Mac. PC versions cheaper, (porting to Mac more expensive for developers hence dearer Mac games), MASSIVE back-catalogue of games previously unavailable to Mac owners will be too tempting to resist for most Mac gamers to ignore installing Windows &, of even greater concern, the whole Intel/Windows thing will bring with it (yes, as well as some discerning switchers from PCs who will appreciate the wonders of MAC OS X & use the platform regularly) also a flood of philistines who'll buy an Apple just because it looks like a nice computer to run their Microsoft & PC gaming software on. ALL Mac software developers may suffer financially long-term. This could affect the future of Mac OS X . Dearly hope I'm proven wrong.

Arnaud
Apr 6, 2006, 07:15 AM
My summary:
- Mac user runs Windows on Mac: can play games, and maybe even realise that Windows is not that bad (to a certain point); conclusion: will stay a Mac user or switch to Windows (because after all, a Mac is expensive for running Windows);
- Pc user runs Windows on Mac: because of his Windows habits, he might never use OsX, especially since his workflow is basically on the PC-part of the Mac; he might also start to like OsX, but this is dubious if he has to change all his way when he has the choice: a "Switcher" of the last 5 years had to forget his habits and learn OsX ("dive and swim"), the new Switcher will just need to reboot to get back into a familiar setting ("dive and get out of the water if you don't feel like swimming").

I still think the odds are not that great.

But maybe there's a trick in the hat: how will "Boot Camp" be implemented in Leopard ? Could Apple limit some of its use, "legally" ?

mattraehl
Apr 6, 2006, 07:15 AM
Me: Game Company X, I want to buy you Cool New Game for my Mac.

Game Company X: Okay, first, you need to upgrade to Lepoard for $130. Now, go pick up a copy of Windows XP for $200. Then, buy the windows version of our game for $50, boot into windows and use that.

Me: Ummm, right. I think I'll go spend my $380 on a game console and a few games. Have a nice day.

Plantman
Apr 6, 2006, 07:21 AM
There has to be more to this than meets the eyes. The threat of software developers stopping making MAC software is huge- and it is not just games, what about MS Office and Photoshop (let's face it Adobe are hardly hauling ass to release a new version anyway!)? The cancellation of the last two titles may have been threatened anyway.

Either Jobs has admitted defeat and wants OS X to wind down and disappear (then Apple could dominate PC hardware) or he has a trick up his sleeve such as Mac equivalent or better versions of Office and Photoshop. I favour the trick up his sleeve as otherwise this does not make good business sense. They certainly are capable of doing this- Keynote is a fine example of a presentation software package which holds its own against PowerPoint- Pages on the otherhand is a little unwieldy for everyday tasks to replace Word but I am sure it could be souped up.

But remember the iPod halo effect will not last forever and Apple need to capitalise on it now or its advantages will slip away.

MacMyDay
Apr 6, 2006, 07:31 AM
Am I telling you that people leave all their applications and documents open? Yes. Yes, I am. I have lots of notes open, TextEdit files, Word documents, PDF files, Terminal applications etc. I will have to close all of them down, disrupt my entire work flow, purely to play on one game, even if it is for an hour. It takes me a fair amount of time to sort everything out when software updates come out to reboot, so I won't be doing it everytime I'm bored and want to play a game.

I don't know about you, but when I play a game, I usually do it for a decent chunk of time...30 minutes at least, up to a number of hours. It's not something that I jump in and out of like I would do with Address Book, Mail or iCal. Does anybody actually use their computer in the way you are suggesting? Hands up all those gamers who enjoy a damned good 3.25 minute session of F.E.A.R or Battlefield 2!! Let's be honest. If you are <cough> "working", and you suddenly feel the need to goof off and start playing games, a minute or two of downtime while you reboot is the least of your concerns.

demallien
Apr 6, 2006, 07:36 AM
I think the doomsayers have forgotten a very important point...

Most here on MacRumors agree that dual-booting is going to help sell more Macs. Lots more Macs. A developer of Mac only games will now suddenly have a much marger market to sell to.

Sure, people doing ports of PC games won't be doing so well. But a larger Mac community means a large, untapped, market where mac-only gaming companies should thrive. Expect to see companies like Ambrosia doing much better thanks to the dual-booting Mac.

I guess we'll see in a couple of years who was right...

commonpeople
Apr 6, 2006, 07:38 AM
Here's the answer.

We'll continue to use Mac OS X as we've always done for access to all our favorite apps. We'll use windows as a dedicated games machine when we want to play a game.

There's really little loss. Those who don't want to play games won't invest in buying windows- as they've always done. Those who love games will gladly suffer the expense of buying a dedicated 'games OS' to run on their Macs.

Arnaud
Apr 6, 2006, 07:48 AM
Most here on MacRumors agree that dual-booting is going to help sell more Macs. Lots more Macs.

Uh, no, I've seen many dissending posts (mine included), it is definitely not an accepted concepts... I'd say half here think it's great, and half here think it's scary... :rolleyes:

minipri
Apr 6, 2006, 07:55 AM
Me: Game Company X, I want to buy you Cool New Game for my Mac.
Game Company X: Okay, first, you need to upgrade to Lepoard for $130. Now, go pick up a copy of Windows XP for $200. Then, buy the windows version of our game for $50, boot into windows and use that.
Me: Ummm, right. I think I'll go spend my $380 on a game console and a few games. Have a nice day.

Nuh-uh. Maybe that's the truth for now... But in a short time, Leopard will be pre installed folks. So no $130 on a new OSX. Wouldn't run on any PowerPC Mac anyway so those guys wouldn't have to worry, right?

And for me...
Sadly but true. I'm willing to pay an extra few Euro's (for windowzzz) to play some ass-kicking game's!
That is... IF they don't port them (and faster and cheaper to!) to OSX of course. Otherwise, I/we will be forced to 'play' it dirty. :D

And no-way! I'm willing to buy an XBox, so don't mention it! Thnx. :p

But then again, ...these are just my two cents.


[ dim. ]

Ps: What do you get when u cross a nun with apple? A computer that will never go down on you!!
...nice one. :)

Leoff
Apr 6, 2006, 08:05 AM
Me: Game Company X, I want to buy you Cool New Game for my Mac.

Game Company X: Okay, first, you need to upgrade to Lepoard for $130. Now, go pick up a copy of Windows XP for $200. Then, buy the windows version of our game for $50, boot into windows and use that.

Me: Ummm, right. I think I'll go spend my $380 on a game console and a few games. Have a nice day.

What world are you living in?

Do you often approach Game Company X, knowing full well that they don't make a Mac version of their "Cool New Game", wanting to buy it? Or do you do what most of the known Mac world does and buy a game that's made for the Mac?

Most Mac people are not going to do all of what you say above to play a game. If they're going to download Boot Camp and purchase Windows, chances are they'll have some other real-world uses for it, not simply to play games.

(Not to mention, most true gamers already have a Windows PC)

jimmy2gig
Apr 6, 2006, 08:08 AM
Hi All!

Installed XP on my 2.0 Ghz MBP last night using Boot Camp, followed closely by Battlefield 2 :)

After running the patches for BF2 it worked a lot better than expected, in fact after pumping the settings up to High across the board it still performed way beyond expectations.

Filmed a movie of the game playing on the MBP but have nowhere to put it online, anyone got a suggestion?

minipri
Apr 6, 2006, 08:21 AM
There has to be more to this than meets the eyes. The threat of software developers stopping making MAC software is huge- and it is not just games, what about MS Office and Photoshop (let's face it Adobe are hardly hauling ass to release a new version anyway!)? The cancellation of the last two titles may have been threatened anyway.

Either Jobs has admitted defeat and wants OS X to wind down and disappear (then Apple could dominate PC hardware) etc. etc. ...

What! No, ...No way! I refuse to believe this! OSX is so much better than Windows. Are you boys&girls forgetting this? (Are there any girls out here anyway? :D )

Plain simple! Don't buy windows software unless you really have to! Force Adobe (&others) to develop for OSX. I for me, I swear to God, that I will NOT buy Adobe soft anymore, NEVER AGAIN, in my entire life. Ever! ...IF they'll drop the bucket on Apple, OSX that is. (for Apple is not OSX per definition, those days are over :) )
They will never drag me down!
I'll use Gimp for all that matter, don't care!
But I'm also honest to admit, ...that I'll like to play a game once in a while. And oeps, there's is Windowzzz again. Sorry. Don't shoot me for this please! Hehehe. ;)

Conclusion: Do NOT buy any Windows software out there! ...except maybe a game that they don't port. :)

Are these (again) just my two cents? ;)

[ dim. ]

Shadow
Apr 6, 2006, 08:48 AM
Hi All!

Installed XP on my 2.0 Ghz MBP last night using Boot Camp, followed closely by Battlefield 2 :)

After running the patches for BF2 it worked a lot better than expected, in fact after pumping the settings up to High across the board it still performed way beyond expectations.

Filmed a movie of the game playing on the MBP but have nowhere to put it online, anyone got a suggestion?
Google video.

demallien
Apr 6, 2006, 09:15 AM
Uh, no, I've seen many dissending posts (mine included), it is definitely not an accepted concepts... I'd say half here think it's great, and half here think it's scary... :rolleyes:

Uh huh, I didn't say it wasn't scary, I said it would sell more Macs. The Nasdaq seems to agree with me even if you don't...

pellucidity
Apr 6, 2006, 09:17 AM
that is all.

demallien
Apr 6, 2006, 09:18 AM
What! No, ...No way! I refuse to believe this! OSX is so much better than Windows. Are you boys&girls forgetting this? (Are there any girls out here anyway? :D )


ben oui!!!

Xenious
Apr 6, 2006, 09:27 AM
I think we are cutting them too much slack already. How about instead of these 3rd parties doing ports, the first parties do the code and release it on day 1 on the same disc.

Blizzard sets the bar here and everyone else needs to live up to their standard.

weazle1098
Apr 6, 2006, 09:36 AM
Whatever happened to think different, this whole thing just seems like the begining of the end of MacOS. Sure there are some good things, but running windows on a Mac just makes it an Apple branded PC not what is a Mac. This better be a step toward simply running windows based programs in MacOS, because, now thats thinking outside the box which is what MacOS is all about.

peharri
Apr 6, 2006, 09:46 AM
This may be true, but remember that oftentimes there is 6 month or more lag between the PC version and Mac version of a game. I'm not convinced that people will wait 6 months to experience a game when they could run down to Best Buy, pick it up, and play it on the day it is released. There are no UI advantages in running the game in OS X versus in Windows. While I would prefer the native Mac version for stability and easy access, I suspect that Boot Camp may indeed have a negative effect on Mac game producers.
You're largely right. I'm not suggesting that most OS X users wouldn't prefer an OS X game - rebooting is a pain (the OS 9 version of Unreal Tournament runs much more smoothly in OS 9 than the Carbon version in OS X, but I run the Carbon version for the most part because I don't want to switch operating systems just to play a game, closing down my web browser, terminal sessions, etc.), but I think given the straight choice of:

1. Wait 3-6 months for the Mac version, if it ever appears at all.
2. Order the Mac version by mail, spending $30-50 on it.
3. Growse about the lack of significant PC features in the Mac version (like the lack of a map editor in all Unreal games)

vs

1. Get PC version
or
1. Wait 3 months, and get the PC version for $10.
2. Growse about rebooting once in a while. Ultimately semi-permanently switch to Windows if it becomes necessary.

I think people will end up doing the latter for the most part. And that's sad and unfortunate, but it's inevitable too.

There are a couple of things Apple can do to make this easier.

They could work on the virtualization systems for Windows, so that at least the reboot isn't necessary. It may be a big "Sorry dudes, but, y'know..." to the Mac game porting industry, but, on the other hand, the ports were never an ideal way of running many of these games anyway.

They could work on building OS X's market share, and put the same kind of efforts into Mac based gaming that Microsoft did when they developed DirectX. This is a two pronged approach. How do you build OS X's market share? Well, there are a bunch of ways of doing this, some they'll consider, some they will not:

- You can sell Mac OS X for whitebox PCs (not likely)
- You can sell desirable, commodity-priced, Macs. The Mac mini is kind of there, but if the aim is to increase marketshare so the platform is more attractive to the game porting/producing community, then the Mac mini isn't suitable. It's the direct opposite. At the very least, every Mac should powerful enough for modern gaming.
- You can lower the barriers to entry that the Mac has by, for instance, oooh, off the top of my head, producing a dual booting solution so that users who are worried about not being able to run key Windows applications, and the very latest games, can run Windows as a last resort. Erm. Ok. Well, I think we're going to have to agree this one's a double edged sword. It's also the one of the three that Apple's actually doing.

What kinds of efforts can Apple engage in to make porting easier?

- Well, they could work with one of the existing console makers on implementing similar APIs so that games can easily be ported from one to the other. Nintendo is the obvious candidate as neither compete with one another. Sony is a direct competitor to Apple, and Microsoft is an indirect competitor in some markets, and direct in one or two.
- OpenGL and OpenAL need to be the best they can be. I think Apple's doing this as much as possible, but it needs saying.
- Apple needs to work on helping port major game engines to OS X. The engines matter more than anything else, most games run over a handful of common engines and just require some tweaks and a recompile to get running. I don't mean to trivialise the amount of work involved in such a port, but few would disagree that it's generally the game engines themselves that need the most amount of work.

The question is: Does Apple care? Will dual-booting be "good enough" and Apple not consider it a potential threat down the line to have many OS X users switch to Windows as their primary OS once they get fed up with chosing between high prices/low availability and rebooting?

esaleris
Apr 6, 2006, 09:53 AM
First of all, nobody is going to pay a 20% premium on hardware to run Windows. When you're buying Mac, you're buying the whole package. I think BootCamp is a "get your foot in the door"-type deal for those on the fence. Jobs is counting on getting users ON the machine in the first place, then he/she can compare Windows XP/Vista and OS X side-by-side for themselves.

Personally, when I'm in the OS X environment, I don't want to leave. The interface is consistent, clean and extremely well-thought out. The applications - even freeware - are amazing and perform great. It's a really refined experience, in terms of the user. You don't see that in Windows, where things can draw from 20 years of legacy code and display information in all sorts of ways.

All Apple's done is leveraged Boot Camp as a way to showcase OS X to drive Mac hardware sales. If it succeeds, there will be plenty of game developers who will code for Mac from day one. If not, OS X won't disappear - you'll just run have Mac users run around with dual-booting machines. Either way, they're buying your friggin' machine!

yoshiii
Apr 6, 2006, 09:57 AM
Good for you! Mac games will suffer with boot camp and that's a fact. Anyone in his/her right mind will boot into windows to play their games, as there are currently only 8-9 proper osx native games for the Intel Macs. There are thousands of amazing games for windows right now!




I disagree! Now that you can run windows natively with the support of apple there is absolutely no reason why developers should port any more apps for OSX. Remember the AutoCAD and 3d Studio MAX petitions? No way AutoDesk will ever even consider
Porting anything to OSX anymore!



If Windows users start buying the imacs and MBPs just because they prefer their looks over the Sony and Dell equivalents then it wont be long before OSX users are in the minority.



You do realize that an OS is only a means to an end right? I mean what good is an OS when you have nothing to run on it? It's pretty pointless defending a mouse cursor and a window manager don't you think? Windows has A LOT more software, which is readily available. OSX could never compete with that. As for iLife... I'd choose ACDC over iPhoto anytime!



OSX is a very visually pleasing OS, however if time and budget are tight then this kind of luxury is not really a priority. Besides you'll find that not many people are willing to become Apple's crusaders anymore.



The rest of your comments sound like words of comfort to me...

PS> having said that i do pray that all your comments come true! :o
Why do you even own a mac?

foofreaknfighte
Apr 6, 2006, 10:19 AM
The reasons I finally bought a pc gaming machine after using macs for ten years. I love my mac by the way, lets not forget why we got them in the first place, it not just cus they looked pretty. It's also not the reason we recommend them to people. The thought of my mom owning a PC makes cringe when I think of my phone bill. Anyway, the reasons I bought a gaming pc...when I already own a top of the line mac.

1. Going to the game store and seeing they only had 3 games for the mac.
2. Going to the game store and seeing they didnt have ANY games for mac.
3. When finally finding a game, realizing it sucked ass.
4. Gaming is a cutting edge hobby, macs graphics cards are way behind on this front, so even if a perfect port were done (which there never are) it still would not run as well.
5. Upgrading is nearly impossible on a mac...I don't want to have to buy a new computer every year in order to run the latest games.


I have been saying for years "macs are great, except for games" or "Macs suck for games". Im sorry folks, but I welcome this dual boot thing. I would love to go to the apple store and piss on the game shelf. I hope they get rid of it...I dunno...maybe they could keep the tetris.

Also, when it comes to gaming, the Macbook Pro is not the fastest notebook out there. The x1600 is not even close to the graphics cards coming out for the laptops that real gamers would be buying. Perhaps when the Pro towers come out, with the big boy graphics cards.....

Damek
Apr 6, 2006, 10:38 AM
Come on, people, how many Mac buyers are going to bother going through the hurdle of using Boot Camp and installing Windows in the first place?

If mom and pop hear their sons and daughters are all getting Macs, and they need a new computer, they're going to get a Mac, too, but they're not going to bother about Boot Camp and Windows and all that crap unless their kids do it for them.

Then there's the obstacle of dual-booting in the first place. I know so few people who actually do it. Dual-boot Linux basically means "Windows all the time" for most people.

Let's have a little faith in the supremacy of OS X over Windows - I really think gamers who start buying Macs so they can use OS X *AND* have access to Windows for games will start buying new games in OS X because they'd rather stay there and not dual boot.

Sure not everyone will follow that route, but I think overall this will be a positive for Apple, and they must think so, too, or they wouldn't be bothering helping people run Windows on their machines.

oingoboingo
Apr 6, 2006, 10:39 AM
Am I telling you that people leave all their applications and documents open? Yes. Yes, I am. I have lots of notes open, TextEdit files, Word documents, PDF files, Terminal applications etc. I will have to close all of them down, disrupt my entire work flow, purely to play on one game, even if it is for an hour. It takes me a fair amount of time to sort everything out when software updates come out to reboot, so I won't be doing it everytime I'm bored and want to play a game.

Truly champagne quality comedy! You're talking about setting off for an hour or so of gaming, right in the middle of a very important work session, and then you're whining about having to shut down your desktop and save Word files, text files etc and spend precious time opening up all your files again. Gold!

In any event, it seems that Windows XP virtualization software has now been released (check the front page for more details), so you will be able to productively spend an hour or two pissing around playing games during your working sessions without <raises a dramatic hand to the forehead> wasting precious seconds reopening documents due to rebooting!!!!

I salute you, MacMyDay! A true warrior for workplace efficiency!

Macmaniac
Apr 6, 2006, 10:54 AM
From a gamers perspective I don't care about platform, I care about performance. That being said I would never use Windows as my primary machine, I have been Mac only since I started using computers, and the same is true of Mac games. However I am frustrated by the lack of good Mac games, Blizzard being the only one IMHO who does a good job with ports.
If I were to buy a new MacBook or iMac I would install Windows on it without hesitation. I will run Blizzard games under OS X, but all other games I will run in Windows. Games like Battle For Middle Earth II and Star Wars Empire at War will never be ported to OS X, and even if they are they will run slower under OS X vs. Windows. I am sick of buying expensive ports of games that are slower, and don't allow network play with PCs. C&C Generals, and Rise of Nations being a couple. I paid full price for these games, when they were already 2-3 years old, and a PC version cost $19 vs $49 for the Mac.

This is my dream come true, I can keep OS X for video editing, and boot windows when I want to play games at a good speed with good frame-rates, no more third rate expensive ports! (except Blizzard who is God for making their games as good on both PC and Mac)

peharri
Apr 6, 2006, 10:58 AM
Truly champagne quality comedy! You're talking about setting off for an hour or so of gaming, right in the middle of a very important work session, and then you're whining about having to shut down your desktop and save Word files, text files etc and spend precious time opening up all your files again. Gold!

I'm trying to work out what's "funny" about the above.

I have a Powerbook at home. I use it exclusively for home stuff. I have windows open all the time - TextEdit.app notes, Firefox (with 5-30 tabs depending on how long it's been open...) and a bunch of terminal windows.

Like I said a few posts above, despite the fact Unreal Tournament for Carbon (OS X) is inferior to UT for OS 9, I do not go through the trouble of rebooting to play UT. I don't want to close all those windows. No, I'm not "in the middle of a very important work session", but that doesn't mean there's not stuff open I don't want to leave open.

I'm guessing you use your computer exclusively for playing games. Or maybe you never use it for playing games. Either way, your patronising "rebuttle" to the GP isn't a rebuttle at all, most of us reading it recognized the situation right away.

nagromme
Apr 6, 2006, 11:23 AM
A lot of people discussing boot camp (be they trolls or merely frightened by change) seem to suggest that Windows is good enough, and Mac OS and iLife have no benefits. They assume Mac users will switch to Windows en masse, caring only about the Apple hardware.

Some people are, in essence, saying that Mac-to-Windows switching will occur faster than Windows-to-Mac switching.

I think if you stop and think about that, you realize it's a silly proposition. I have no such fears. The switching trend will stay in Mac's favor. Boot Camp will help Switchers and Adders alike.

Equally absurd are the assertions that most new Mac buyers in future won't use OS X or iLife. They'll pay for them but never try them? Or are we back to "Windows is just as good as OS X"? ;)


Now put yourself in a game developer's shoes. It's harder than before to justify the incremental development and support costs to sell a Mac OS X version because many of your customers can already use the Windows version.

That could happen, but it's a question of math. Let's say one third of all Mac gamers buy Windows in the next four years. (I think that is an unrealistic high number.) To make up for that loss in game sales, the Mac market as a whole simply has to grow by 50% in the same timeframe.

Actually it doesn't EVEN have to grow by 50%. Because some fraction of Mac gamers ALREADY use Windows for gaming. So they will be no loss to Boot Camp.

The Mac market growing by something a little under 50% in the next four years is very likely I think. HELPED, in fact, by Boot Camp.

That's the break-even point if one-third of Mac gamers buy Windows. That's the point at which Mac game companies can maintain current sales. If fewer buy Windows, or if the Mac market as a whole grows faster, then sales can increase. Time will tell.

Nobody could argue that Windows won't harm Mac game companies. It will. My reason for optimism is that other factors will HELP them at the same time.

(Also, I'd like to note that a forum thread on dual booting is not a representative sample of the game-buying public. A lot more people on here, vs. the general public, will be willing to buy and install Windows during gaming. A lot of people want to buy a game off the shelf and play it. My sister, for instance, would love to play Fable: The Lost Chapters--a current and mainstream title--but she'd never think of buying and installing Windows to make it happen.)

milo
Apr 6, 2006, 11:53 AM
It all boils down to one thing. Are the mac versions competitive with the PC version?

If companies want their mac version to sell, they need to release close to the PC release date. They also need to keep pricing competitive between the two platforms.

Even with this, I still consider a cross platform game to have a competitive advantage.

If two games are released on the same day, one is pc only and one is both platforms (even a hybrid disc), if the games are equally good, which is going to sell more copies? Won't the cross platform game sell better since there's a bigger base of users that can buy it?

MacMyDay
Apr 6, 2006, 01:14 PM
Thanks, peharri. Nice to see someone has sense.

I have tens of Terminal windows open connected to different servers,in the middle of different projects, with different notes connected to them, and different Safari tabs open related to the development of these projects. If this doesn't makes sense to you, please don't reply with some smart-arse comment. Closing down everything I'm working on to load a game is not such great "champagne quality comedy!". I really cannot see how you could be so stupid to negate the point I'm putting across. It does NOT take seconds, or even minutes. Please go login to multiple servers and work on multiple projects via SSH, with different work loads, different windows of notes arranged and reboot for me, and work out how long it takes to get it working again.

What would you prefer? To reboot your phone everytime you wanted to send a text message, or load it up via your phone? I run my own company, and my work will always be loaded to resume again, just like with my PowerBook for personal use. It could be 9pm at night, which is not "right in the middle of a very important work session". I simply do not want to reboot my computer. Can you see a problem with that?


Truly champagne quality comedy! You're talking about setting off for an hour or so of gaming, right in the middle of a very important work session, and then you're whining about having to shut down your desktop and save Word files, text files etc and spend precious time opening up all your files again. Gold!

In any event, it seems that Windows XP virtualization software has now been released (check the front page for more details), so you will be able to productively spend an hour or two pissing around playing games during your working sessions without <raises a dramatic hand to the forehead> wasting precious seconds reopening documents due to rebooting!!!!

I salute you, MacMyDay! A true warrior for workplace efficiency!

ImNoSuperMan
Apr 6, 2006, 01:22 PM
I just cant figure out why would any company (other than apple itself) develop software for OSX if a good enough number of Mac users already have windows. No company is here for social work. Everybody wants to increase their profits. Developing a software costs some real money.

Take for eg Photoshop. We do have an OSX version available. But I m sure they sell at least 50 copies for windoze and 1 for OSX. They may still be selling 1000`s of Mac copies. But once they know that even Mac users can install the same windows version, Why will they ever bother with an OSX version. That will cost them extra $$ to develop and support. Photoshop is a great software. If I want to buy PS and I dont find an OSX specific version then I`d simply buy the windows version. It(PS) can`t be any worse than what the rest of the world is using,if not better.

But I m not saying that this wud be a bad move for Apple or OSX. Steve Jobs is a wise man. He knows his job pretty damn well. Everything which is being discussed here would`ve been through his mind 4 years ago. May be he wants to discontinue software development(very Unlikely but possible) and concentrate on hardware. Or may be he`d be reducing Mac to just a home entertainment device. Great for web surfing, emailing, blogging, music, iMovie, iChat, iPhoto, iLife etc. I m sure home users wont find any need for Windows if they already have such great software. Except may be for gaming. But then Gaming on Macs was never a priority for Apple.But if you still want more you can always use windows.

Or may be he wants to annihilate MS completely. Give users and developers the choice of both OS and let them decide which will rule the world. And there is every possibility that this may work in Apple`s favour. Finally Apple may be able to compete with MS on better grounds.

All of these are wild guesses. If I can know what Steve is upto then I might well be Apple CEO. Which I definitely aint, and can never be. So all we can do right now is just wait n see what happens. And till then just keep guessing. One thing is for sure that Steve is upto something big.

REALLY BIG..........

foofreaknfighte
Apr 6, 2006, 01:54 PM
Does anybody know if there are any benchmarks out for any of the intel machines? I would like to see what 3Dmark05 does on the new pro.

ImNoSuperMan
Apr 6, 2006, 02:05 PM
Hi All!

Installed XP on my 2.0 Ghz MBP last night using Boot Camp, followed closely by Battlefield 2 :)

After running the patches for BF2 it worked a lot better than expected, in fact after pumping the settings up to High across the board it still performed way beyond expectations.

Filmed a movie of the game playing on the MBP but have nowhere to put it online, anyone got a suggestion?

Upload the file to www.rapidshare.com or turboupload.com and post the link here.
I personally favour rapidshare.com

macpastor
Apr 6, 2006, 02:09 PM
I have seen a couple sites where they are giving some thought on gaming. I am not a gamer, but I wonder, is the gaming on a Windows PC that much better and why? If, as they have said thus far, that gaming is great on the Mac using Boot Camp, is that a reason for alot of gamers to switch?

daddy-mojo
Apr 6, 2006, 02:18 PM
This may be true, but remember that oftentimes there is 6 month or more lag between the PC version and Mac version of a game. I'm not convinced that people will wait 6 months to experience a game when they could run down to Best Buy, pick it up, and play it on the day it is released. There are no UI advantages in running the game in OS X versus in Windows. While I would prefer the native Mac version for stability and easy access, I suspect that Boot Camp may indeed have a negative effect on Mac game producers.

yah, but what about all the people who are running ppc macs. we still need ported versions. that would kill off a whole market wouldn't it? just because of intel macs and boot camp doesn't mean we all own intel macs now or even plan to purchase in the next year or so. a few years from now, maybe, but then again, who knows what the OS will be like by then.

twitsami
Apr 6, 2006, 02:25 PM
Maybe im crazy but i see this as giving developers a reason to develop for macs. This is only going to increase Apples market share, the #1 reason games have to be ported to mac in the first place. Once the market share goes up, MacOS X will become a more favorable option. We all know that buying a Mac means your probably going for the OS. If the operating system you use 95% of the time is OSX, your honestly going to find it a pain to reboot, just to play a game... thus the push to have OSX games. Developers have no excuse other than market share, and i see that changing.

dubnluvn
Apr 6, 2006, 02:47 PM
I skipped the last few pages so someone may have covered this:

I think a lot of you are missing something. Releasing games for Mac simultaniously with PC versions is not happening overnight. This is going to take some time. There will be no fewer mac ports available in the short term. The real key here is Apple building market share by exposing Windows users to OSX with the 'safety net' of being able to play their games and run their software and do the other things they *think they may not be able to do on a Mac. As the number of people running OSX increases so does the likelyhood of software companies delivering concurrent game releases for both Windows and Mac. Another thing is, by apple making the worlds first computer that runs both OS's natively, software devs. may realize that it is a lot easier to make the same software for mac than it has ever been. Add in a little intuition by these companies that the Mac's market share is on the rise, what we are looking at is a long term solution to increased market share for the Mac and OSX and expanding the horizon of available software previously unavailable or seriously delayed. JMHO.


haha twitsami beat me to it

j26
Apr 6, 2006, 03:04 PM
I just cant figure out why would any company (other than apple itself) develop software for OSX if a good enough number of Mac users already have windows...


Most mac users won't install windows - it's primarily a safety net to induce potential switchers - the "Ah sure I'll try it and if I can't work OS X out, I can run Windows and still have a sexy machine"

guzhogi
Apr 6, 2006, 04:07 PM
I was just thinking something: what if Apple made a version of xCode for Windows and made it possible to build an application that runs natively on both Macs & Windows? Apple would have to port the frameworks and maybe port .Net to Macs. As for the interfaces, anyone here who's used xCode and Interface Builder would know what Nib files are. For those who do, since you can make localized Nibs for other languages like Spanish, German, whatever, maybe it's possible to make a Nib for Windows and one for Mac just so that it has the operating system's interface. This would significantly help developers. But I don't know if it's even possible.

bilbo--baggins
Apr 6, 2006, 05:12 PM
It all boils down to one thing. Are the mac versions competitive with the PC version?

If companies want their mac version to sell, they need to release close to the PC release date. They also need to keep pricing competitive between the two platforms.

Even with this, I still consider a cross platform game to have a competitive advantage.

If two games are released on the same day, one is pc only and one is both platforms (even a hybrid disc), if the games are equally good, which is going to sell more copies? Won't the cross platform game sell better since there's a bigger base of users that can buy it?

Maybe this move will polarise the Mac game developers. They will have 2 choices:

1) Give up development for Mac, on the assumption that Mac users will be able to run the Windows version

2) Realise that they will be wasting their money porting to the Mac if the games arrive late or cost more than the PC versions because nobody will buy them.

Already Blizzard fall into category 2 - World of Warcraft was released last year as a hybrid that could install on Mac or PC, and they have given support for Mac users from day 1.

Maybe this will jolt Mac game developers into making a decent effort to match PC games launch dates and price. Those that don't will fall by the wayside. Unfortunately I seem to recall that Microsoft bought the software company that developed Halo - so they're unlikely to choose option 2?

MrCrowbar
Apr 6, 2006, 05:13 PM
Don't worry about the lack of Mac games - just get a Nintendo Revolution later this year. If it turns out to be as good as it seems, then the Revolution will be the Mac of game consoles.

The Revoution will officially be called "Nintendo Go"...
Anyway, I like the idea of having an OS for Work (OSX) and Windows for games. Expirienced Windows users know that the more stuff you install, the slower your system is. A game may run at 50 fps on a fresh XP install, after 6 months it's down to 20 when you do a lot on the system.

But if you only have games on the XP partition, windows would live a lot longer. I've trief Half Life 2 on the low end Mac Mini today. You can run it full details on 1024 x 768. I think that's impressive for a mashine with integrated graphics. Kudos to apple for these little mashines. Just tape one on the back of a flat panel display and go on LAN parties with it :)

progx
Apr 6, 2006, 05:44 PM
just like the game developers have said, let's see where this goes.

i mean, it's a two way street: good and/or bad. the worst thing that could happen is it backfires and everyone deletes OS X from their Macs and puts on Vista.

i doubt it will happen. this is part of the switch campaign, making the transition even easier for former Windows users who buy Intel Macs. hell, Linux users have had to dual boot for years, but there is still a game market there!

relax and just watch. if we lose Mac games and the Mac all together, well it was fun while it lasted. until then, relax!

bhibbert
Apr 6, 2006, 07:00 PM
This would be great but I am 8 balled because I use an Intel iMac with the Apple wireless keyboard and mouse. Bootcamp requires a wired keyboard and mouse.

I hope that Apple will support bluetooth in a revised beta or the final product.

minipri
Apr 6, 2006, 08:02 PM
I'm trying to work out what's "funny" about the above.

I have a Powerbook at home. I use it exclusively for home stuff. I have windows open all the time - TextEdit.app notes, Firefox (with 5-30 tabs depending on how long it's been open...) and a bunch of terminal windows.

Like I said a few posts above, despite the fact Unreal Tournament for Carbon (OS X) is inferior to UT for OS 9, I do not go through the trouble of rebooting to play UT. I don't want to close all those windows. No, I'm not "in the middle of a very important work session", but that doesn't mean there's not stuff open I don't want to leave open.

etc. etc.

When you'll play a game as heavy as UT... then, performance wise, isn't it for the best to close as much as possible? I know I will!

Perhaps reconsider your working method, no? If possible, Again, I know I will!

[ dim. ]

monster620ie
Apr 6, 2006, 09:03 PM
Has anyone read John C. Dvorak article on PC magazine ( March 7 , 2006 page 91 ) ...

I love macs but I am getting scared of what might happen in the long run i.e. "....apple will ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows....."

This is too scary :(

digitldrew
Apr 6, 2006, 09:14 PM
I hope that Apple will support bluetooth in a revised beta or the final product.
from apple [The public beta of Boot Camp is available and is preview software licensed for use on a trial basis for a limited time. The final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 “Leopard.” ]
maybe apple will release another beta. maybe not. They want you to buy Leopard, so they might hold off all the features till then.

digitldrew
Apr 6, 2006, 09:26 PM
Has anyone read John C. Dvorak article on PC magazine ( March 7 , 2006 page 91 ) ...

I love macs but I am getting scared of what might happen in the long run i.e. "....apple will ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows....."

This is too scary :(

theres no sane reason that Apple would ditch its OS. there has never been since the beginning. I don't see why people are connecting that Boot Camp came and OSX left.

The future that I see is that Boot Camp came and teased PC users into Apple by offering them a way to use both, meanwhile snatching up all the unsatisfied Microsoft PC users, creating a stronger legion of OSX fans. Developers see the shift. OSX begins its quest into the mainstream. Later down the road Boot Camp becomes a useless feature.

and really, if booting to Microsoft strips all the life out of OSX gaming, its cool. Maybe Apple has thought this out and sees the future of gaming going elsewhere. the console gaming market is a monster. Maybe the future of MS PC is dead. and their only future is gaming. lol. makes sense to me.

Using a MS PC will always be like shopping at Walmart. There will be millions of people that find it satisfying. The other crowd hopefully will have an affordable option to not compute in such a boring and unthoughtout environment.

PowerPC Rules
Apr 6, 2006, 11:35 PM
:mad: I don't know about many of you other Mac users, but I certainly didn't buy a Mac so that I could use Windows or any programs associated with it.

Hard to imagine that any software developers will have much of an incentive to develop software specifically for the Mac or OS X if end users can simply boot Windows and run the programs. Doesn't bode well for those of us with G5 and older machines.

I imagine Apple is taking this approach in order to increase their market share for Apple hardware, but where does this leave OS X? Too few Windows users have switched over to OS X previously, what makes Apple think they'll switch just for the hardware?

Seems like my favorite rebel company is not thinking differently anymore.

Mac_Max
Apr 7, 2006, 12:28 AM
A mac user will always get a mac version of a game over a pc. The only instance where that wouldn't happen is if he or she already had a pc version for some other purpose which isn't as common.

Tell that to my PC which sits next to my Mac. I built it specifically for gaming because, as wonderful as OS X is, its implimentation of OpenGL is slower than Window's implimentation of OpenGL and DirectX. Sad fact of life but its the one advantage my PC has over my Mac.

Abu Reno
Apr 7, 2006, 01:02 AM
All you mac users upset about this should look at the percentage of both XP & OS users. This move is great for the consumer. Let's face it games on the mac suck. I've been so hesitant numerous times about buying a pc to play games. Not only games but graphic apps such as 2D and 3D apps are much faster. The fastest mac graphic card in the market couldn't compete against the PC until this day!!!!!!;)

digitldrew
Apr 7, 2006, 01:13 AM
what makes Apple think they'll switch just for the hardware?

Seems like my favorite rebel company is not thinking differently anymore.

its not just the hardware. before when you purchased an intel mac, you get Tiger and a nice computer. now you get Tiger, a nice computer, and Windows Boot option.

Apple trying to think different is getting Windows users to switch to Apple computers, which gives them Tiger, a nice computer, and Windows. 3 powerful things that could get Apple some more cash flow.

You have to remember.... Apple is keeping OSX from booting on a generic PC. right?

kenneth
Apr 7, 2006, 01:29 AM
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion recently came out, PC and X box only of course. The system demands for this game is very high. If any one can run it on a Mac with "boot camp" please let us know.

mandis
Apr 7, 2006, 01:58 AM
Why do you even own a mac?


I could tell you, but then i'd have to kill you... :p

mdriftmeyer
Apr 7, 2006, 03:54 AM
If there enough people like you, developers would have more incentive to stay cross-platform. But you are a minority and it just got a lot easier for Mac users to use Windows.

Braindead. It just got a lot easier for Mac users to use other operating systems on their hardware.

So what. The reason they use OS X is not the hardware, but the operating system.

This has been proven with sales of Mac Hardware increasing since Intel, mainly due to the fact that Intel must innovate to compete in the PC space against AMD. IBM wants the server markets. With Intel making the efforts to port their compilers to OS X and other advancements through joint ventures, it makes it that much easier for 3rd party peripheral and add-on card vendors to coordinate with Apple and provide driver support.

This ability to have the latest in add-ons with their favorite OS will only expand Apple's market share.

It will boil down to OS X vs. XP in not just the consumer space, but the enterprise space as well.

Any game vendor who can't get off their asses to port their games to OS X as it market will continue to grow is truly dense.

What they really want from Apple is a set of APIs targeted specifically for Game Developers and to have OpenGL 2 graphics cards ASAP.

WWDC hasn't even arrived and these pukes are whining already.

MacAdder
Apr 7, 2006, 10:15 AM
well, your arguments are flawed.

1. RIGHT NOW you may need to buy Windows first. In a couple of months you won't. Just have a look at what Transgaming/Cedega did for Linux - they'll definitely do it for Mac OS X as well. Also: most people have Windows at home anyway.

2. Boot Camp may be beta, but Windows (at least according to Microsoft) isn't. Once Windows is installed (which works extremely well using Boot Camp), nobody cares about the beta status. Apart from that: boot camp ain't gonna be beta forever.

3. YES I would play a beta game if it rocked.
if you used that copy of Windows you have at home it would be illegal....Remember to go out and purchase a new copy:D

minipri
Apr 7, 2006, 04:33 PM
Assume that Apple knows (now with Boot Camp) we all are gonna play games more often. Windows games for all I care...
Assume this, ... Shouldn't Apple give us better Graphic Cards then? Or at least the possibility to upgrade? (listening Apple?)

For all I know, Apple isn't doing well at this point. Or am I wrong? (No I am not wrong :cool: )

What do you think?

[ dim. ]

WiseWeasel
Apr 7, 2006, 09:24 PM
The game developers can counter this threat by releasing WINE versions of games that will run with Crossover Office's solutions to play in MacOS X on Intel Macs. Sure, that leaves PPC gamers out in the cold, but they weren't going to use the MacBoot solution anyways, so it's a different market than the one they're worried about losing here.

Senbei
Apr 7, 2006, 11:54 PM
Seems like my favorite rebel company is not thinking differently anymore.
They are thinking different. Different from the old/irrational "computing as a religion" and "being different just for the sake of being different" sort of mentality which made all of us Mac users look like a bunch of cultish freaks to many others. That is one of the things I disliked as those of us who looked at desktop computing environments from a rational perspective (and didn't care about participating in these silly platform/OS wars) as useful multipurpose tools (and using the best tools to get the job done regardless of platform and operating system instead of using a "hammer" for everything) all ended up being generalized into that same group.

Assume that Apple knows (now with Boot Camp) we all are gonna play games more often. Windows games for all I care...
Assume this, ... Shouldn't Apple give us better Graphic Cards then?
Apple isn't assuming anything. All they are doing is providing the enabling technology and doing it in an Apple-like fashion to allow running other x86-based operating systems for those who want to be able to do so. What people do with it Apple really doesn't care and with regards to Windows, they are only providing the drivers for XP in order to make that user experience as pleasant as possible and to not make the Mac look crappier than it has to when it is running XP (else all you are going to get is the detractors coming out in force saying look at how much the Mac sucks running Windows).

mdriftmeyer
Apr 8, 2006, 12:07 AM
Assume that Apple knows (now with Boot Camp) we all are gonna play games more often. Windows games for all I care...
Assume this, ... Shouldn't Apple give us better Graphic Cards then? Or at least the possibility to upgrade? (listening Apple?)

For all I know, Apple isn't doing well at this point. Or am I wrong? (No I am not wrong :cool: )

What do you think?

[ dim. ]

Shouldn't Microsoft give us better graphics drivers? It's up to the driver manufacturers to get on board and work with I/OKit. They can't bitch too much since it's written in C++.

Apple is ripe with cash. They are expanding their markets and the shares in everyone of them.

minipri
Apr 8, 2006, 02:52 AM
Shouldn't Microsoft give us better graphics drivers?

Okay, Apple isn't assuming anything. But... the grahic cards on Mac aren't to write home about. They are different then the one's for PC right? When the Intel Powermac will arrive, I can't imagine that I can pick up any graphic card designed for use with Windows and throw it into my beloved machine. ...Or will I?
So again, they are different. Isn't that the biggest problem?

And I know that Apple really doesn't care for us gamers, and don't care how we will use Windows on Boot Camp anyway but isn't it about time they start to care?

I mean, I'll buy a Mac for God knows how much $$'s (€€'s in my case) and all people can say is: "Oh you want to play a game from time to time?? Sorry! Then you should buy a friggin' XBox, PSX or full branded PC!"
And then I'll say: "NO! I bought myself a Mac and I wanna use it! No ugly hardware in my apartment please. Why do I have to buy a console anyway? I don't like playing that way.

Am I so high demanded?

[ dim. ]

ManchesterTrix
Apr 8, 2006, 08:06 AM
Okay, Apple isn't assuming anything. But... the grahic cards on Mac aren't to write home about.

Yeah, that ATI X1600 is just crap!

Porco
Apr 8, 2006, 12:24 PM
I think the best point is the one about mac games being more expensive than their Windows counterparts. That is, to me, the single biggest obstacle for mac gaming as it is, let alone after boot camp and intel macs have been around a while.

I can wait a while for a port, I can put up with performance not being quite as good (I have a nice machine anyway) but when you add those points to a higher price tag, it's just silly. I'm surprised Aspyr and co make any money at all from mac games, but I maybe their prices mean they only need to sell a couple of copies!

What mac gaming really needs imho is good, new, OS X-exclusive titles, instead of trying to compete with consoles and the PC, which it can't.

On the subject of boot camp more generally, I see it as a big marketing plus point for potential 1st-time/returning mac purchasers, not so much current mac users/upgraders (apart from perhaps some Virtual PC users). It means windows users protect their investment in windows software, have a fall-back if they hate OS X and yes, games are part of that.

bigwig
Apr 8, 2006, 01:32 PM
You can hope though, I mean that's where Mac OS X is struggling. In the business world, yes some do use macs, so that's not a problem (office apps), but with gaming it is a big issue.
Office apps are a problem. Quickbooks for Mac is apparently a joke. Act! is windows only. Why would they bother starting or continuing OSX support, now that the Mac user has no leverage to demand OSX native apps?

Porco
Apr 8, 2006, 03:49 PM
Office apps are a problem. Quickbooks for Mac is apparently a joke. Act! is windows only. Why would they bother starting or continuing OSX support, now that the Mac user has no leverage to demand OSX native apps?

The argument could be for a growing OS X user-base Vs a declining Windows user-base. If that's what happens. A Windows user who buys a mac but doesn't use OS X is presumably just another Windows user who happened to buy a mac instead of a Dell or whatever. But if only a few of those try out OS X and decide they like it better, that's more incentive for developers to make apps for OS X, because there are more potential sales than there might have been.

Apple seem to be betting that they will win more OS X users from boot camp etc than lose market share to Windows on their hardware. I think that's fantastic, and I agree with them - part of all this to me is that it looks like they're putting their faith in their product, that they believe in OS X enough to win out when Windows is installed on the same machine and end users can directly compare the whole experience of using both OSs on a level playing field.

Stella
Apr 9, 2006, 09:26 PM
Lokigames, a company that ported games to Linux, went out of business a couple of months after Transgaming released their software for running Windows games on Linux. The exact same thing will happen to Mac game companies.

Lokigames where in trouble even before that... the staff hadn't been paid for months, it was all pretty grim.

Their conversions were OK though - I bought a few Linux games.

verbel
Apr 10, 2006, 08:56 AM
The future that I see is that Boot Camp came and teased PC users into Apple by offering them a way to use both, meanwhile snatching up all the unsatisfied Microsoft PC users, creating a stronger legion of OSX fans. Developers see the shift. OSX begins its quest into the mainstream. Later down the road Boot Camp becomes a useless feature.

This is kinda where I am at for the moment at least the teased into getting a apple. I just ordered my macbook and if boot camp hadent come along I don't know if I would have done it.

pubwvj
May 10, 2006, 05:16 PM
The whole idea of rebooting back and forth makes it not worthwhile for gaming or even more serious applications that I would use frequently. Having to reboot makes it only worthwhile for something like tax software where you do it once in a while. Except that I bagged tax software and just do it by hand now so even that isn't a good enough reason to reboot.

One of the joys of the Mac is not having to reboot so often. Our family has several Macs and we reboot them once in a blue moon. I've heard Windows users complain about rebooting several times per day. Major hassle.

What I want is virtualization. I just wan to be able to run any software - not hassle with Windows. I want MacOS X, Windows, Classic, PalmOS, Unix/Linux and it all to feel like the Mac.