Not speaking for [mention]mr_roboto [/mention]or [mention]OptimusGrime [/mention]here but it sure sounds like a good idea! Or at the very least one they should give a meaningful shot at given TV+ is a thing they’re proud of (and should be).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple is falling behind, M4 Max nowhere close to RTX 5090.
- Thread starter Zest28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not speaking for [mention]mr_roboto [/mention]or [mention]OptimusGrime [/mention]here but it sure sounds like a good idea! Or at the very least one they should give a meaningful shot at given TV+ is a thing they’re proud of (and should be).
Well, yes and no. Certainly, you're absolutely right that the small native gaming software selection is now the principal barrier to serious gaming on the Mac.
But the hardware matters too, particularly if you're talking about higher-end PC gamers.
I'm sure Apple would love those who are currently using their PC's for both gaming and general use, and who would consider switching to the Mac if it weren't for the limited gaming software, to someday start buying Mac Studios. But even if, today, the Mac had a gaming library comparable to that for PC's, I think those potential customers with ≈$2,500 budgets, and looking for ≈5070Ti performance, would be reluctant to buy a Mac Studio, whose GPU performance appears to be closer to (though still higher than) that of a 5060Ti
Yes, Mac's have always been more expensive. But they do offer more, so I expect some would be willing to pay, say, a $500 "Apple Tax" to have what, overall, is a much nicer machine (much quieter, smaller, and more efficient, with a better CPU)—but only if it offered comparable gaming performance, which it does not.
And that's the problem. The only upgrade path to get better gaming perfomance than the Max would be an Ultra, which puts you into an entirely different price category (yes, this was skipped for the M4, but the general principle still applies).
I.e., the problem isn't that a Mac with ≈5070Ti desktop performance is some hundreds of dollars more than a 5070Ti PC. Macs are always going to cost more. It's that such a product doesn't exist. Perhaps this will change if Apple offers modular GPU and CPU options on its Mac Studio.
Last edited:
I wonder whether the angle from which we discuss Mac gaming is fundamentally misguided. The analogy we commonly use (and it's the intuitive one!) is the PC gaming, but I think that Macs should be viewed as consoles. What are the key properties of consoles as compared to PC gaming?
- Unified hardware (check)
- Low-level access to hardware capabilities (check)
- Predictable software environment and performance (check)
PC gaming is characterized by the extremely heterogenous computing environment, which is also the main reason why games are buggy and the PC gaming hardware is over dimensioned. Gaming APIs need to cater to the least common denominator, which is inefficient. Macs do not have this problem, they only differ in the level of performance offered, which can be easily accommodated.
So I think if Apple wants to be successful in the gaming segment, they need to treat their devices as consoles — both from the developer perspective and the marketing perspective. There is a lot of work to be done still. The development environment is not stable enough (devs frequently complain about subtle bugs and unpredictable behavior of Metal), the tooling is not there yet, and most importantly, there is not enough incentive to target Macs as gaming devices.
When the M1 was initially accounted I was among the optimists who believed that Mac gaming will "naturally" enjoy a new era of revival. That didn't really happen. So now I am inclined to agree with those who have argued that in order to change the tides Apple needs to launch a console-like device. This could be something like a Switch, running a modified version of iOS, or maybe even a headless box like an Apple TV. The games would be compatible with iOS and macOS. Of course, all of this is wishful thinking. Apple does not have the culture or the interest to make this happen. Which is a shame, given the fact that they have been pouring billions into making mediocre TV shows.
- Unified hardware (check)
- Low-level access to hardware capabilities (check)
- Predictable software environment and performance (check)
PC gaming is characterized by the extremely heterogenous computing environment, which is also the main reason why games are buggy and the PC gaming hardware is over dimensioned. Gaming APIs need to cater to the least common denominator, which is inefficient. Macs do not have this problem, they only differ in the level of performance offered, which can be easily accommodated.
So I think if Apple wants to be successful in the gaming segment, they need to treat their devices as consoles — both from the developer perspective and the marketing perspective. There is a lot of work to be done still. The development environment is not stable enough (devs frequently complain about subtle bugs and unpredictable behavior of Metal), the tooling is not there yet, and most importantly, there is not enough incentive to target Macs as gaming devices.
When the M1 was initially accounted I was among the optimists who believed that Mac gaming will "naturally" enjoy a new era of revival. That didn't really happen. So now I am inclined to agree with those who have argued that in order to change the tides Apple needs to launch a console-like device. This could be something like a Switch, running a modified version of iOS, or maybe even a headless box like an Apple TV. The games would be compatible with iOS and macOS. Of course, all of this is wishful thinking. Apple does not have the culture or the interest to make this happen. Which is a shame, given the fact that they have been pouring billions into making mediocre TV shows.
Sure, it matters to them, but do they matter to Apple?
I would argue no. If a game dev considers porting to Mac at all, one of the first things they'll do is try to estimate the size of the addressable market. In doing this analysis, very few of them will care whether a top end Mac matches top end gaming PCs. Most PC games are designed to scale to low-end hardware by turning graphics options off, because otherwise they'd be self-limiting their PC addressable market to a small fraction of PC owners.
As of the M1 generation, all Macs from the cheapest to most expensive have a GPU respectable enough to run most game titles without serious compromises, so long as appropriate optimization work is put into the port.
So, Apple doesn't have to worry about their hardware. It's more than good enough already. If they seriously want more games, the most important thing they can do is to vastly improve their relations with PC game developers, because until they do (and for enough time to make their long-term understanding and commitment clear), the gaming industry will continue to mostly ignore the Mac except for the occasional stunt port (that Apple paid for).
Ooh boy this thread.
There are lots of misinformation and fake news. Let’s start.
The benchmarks. I don’t expect most people here to follow PC developments but Nvidia is LYING to you. They have been caught time and time again and this time, it’s fraud is the 5000 series. First off, the benchmarks for the 5000 series have been mostly faked or twisted. The 5090, for example, barely edges out the 4090. The 5070 ti is not much better than the 4070 ti. The 5060 is essentially a 4060, rebranded. The only edge the 5000 series has is the new driver software than give them up to 3 extra fake frames. These aren’t real but AI produced and have their own litany of problems like massacring the visual image in many cases. I mean these are the guys that promised 4090 performance from their 5060 cards. Yes, they have that on a slide in their keynote announcing the 5000 series.
Now the benchmarks. It’s been brought to light that Nvidia has been cherry picking reviews and going so far as blacklisting anyone who says anything critical and forcing their review or criticism off line. So those lovely little graphs you think are so accurate, aren’t.
Hit up Gamer’s Nexus for full coverage and to fact check the above.
Not sure you want to keep arguing over fake numbers and all of Nvidia’s lies, but you guys do you.
There are lots of misinformation and fake news. Let’s start.
The benchmarks. I don’t expect most people here to follow PC developments but Nvidia is LYING to you. They have been caught time and time again and this time, it’s fraud is the 5000 series. First off, the benchmarks for the 5000 series have been mostly faked or twisted. The 5090, for example, barely edges out the 4090. The 5070 ti is not much better than the 4070 ti. The 5060 is essentially a 4060, rebranded. The only edge the 5000 series has is the new driver software than give them up to 3 extra fake frames. These aren’t real but AI produced and have their own litany of problems like massacring the visual image in many cases. I mean these are the guys that promised 4090 performance from their 5060 cards. Yes, they have that on a slide in their keynote announcing the 5000 series.
Now the benchmarks. It’s been brought to light that Nvidia has been cherry picking reviews and going so far as blacklisting anyone who says anything critical and forcing their review or criticism off line. So those lovely little graphs you think are so accurate, aren’t.
Hit up Gamer’s Nexus for full coverage and to fact check the above.
Not sure you want to keep arguing over fake numbers and all of Nvidia’s lies, but you guys do you.
The OP left after two posts, fleeing as soon as people started questioning and debunking his or her ridiculous original post and graphs.
I haven’t reviewed the whole thing, but what I remember of the subsequent discussion is informative, wide-ranging, and interesting, with little or no naïveté with regard to Nvidia’s marketing hype.
Although I have thought about trying to write about the stark contrast between Nvidia’s approach to roadmaps/marketing, versus Apple’s. It’s a useful comparison.
You make an excellent point— Apple should, because of its integration, be able to provide an ideal, console-like development environment. But, as you also say, they currently don't.
By "console" do you mean a computing box (like a PlayStation) or an integrated device (like a Switch Lite)?
And correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that, because of Apple's failure to create a proper game development environment in MacOS, Apple should instead create a new 'ConsoleOS' that is gaming-optimized, and stick it into a console-like device.
But if developers aren't willing to port their top games to an existing user base (AS Macs), why would they be willing to do that for an entirely new device (a Mac console) with no pre-existing user base, even if the development environment is nicer?
Yes, MS was able to enter the market with XBox in 2001, but that was a very different time, when the market was less saturated. Even with that, they took a huge financial loss to start, some of which I'm guessing was for subsidizing game development for the XBox—and I'm further guessing that was at a time when development of AAA games was much less expensive, even after accounting for inflation.
Also, isn't the sucessful business model for consoles the razor blade model? [I.e., sell the hardware at about cost, and make the money on games sales.] I don't know if Apple would be willing to do that.
I think if Apple wanted to pursue this, they shouldn't make an entirely separate console, with its own OS. The Mini is close to a computing-box-style console already. I believe it would make more sense, and take less resources, to instead fix MacOS's development environment and create a modified Mini that's more gaming-optimized, while keeping the price palatable. Then any games created for it could also be played on the remainder of the AS Mac user base.
Last edited:
Apple has to do something clever to support Dx or work with Vulkan at a much higher capacity. They are all but irrelevant in gaming because of their restrictive practices. Even given the boon of Apple silicon, their numbers amongst gamers are not rising. The GPTK is not enough.
And they aren’t getting crushed by hardware, they are getting crushed by software. Nvidia hasn’t made anywhere near the advancements in hardware since the 2000 series as they have with software (DLSS, etc.). Apple’s M1 hardware can compete with a 3060 and that is still plenty for most games these days. Not 4K@120Hz but will deliver short of a console quality. What holds them back is Metal and market share. Steam stats show them at half a percent. Less I think.
Apple has to close the gap in software and licensing.
And they aren’t getting crushed by hardware, they are getting crushed by software. Nvidia hasn’t made anywhere near the advancements in hardware since the 2000 series as they have with software (DLSS, etc.). Apple’s M1 hardware can compete with a 3060 and that is still plenty for most games these days. Not 4K@120Hz but will deliver short of a console quality. What holds them back is Metal and market share. Steam stats show them at half a percent. Less I think.
Apple has to close the gap in software and licensing.
What I was thinking about is more of a gateway gaming-focused device aimed at increasing the market share and changing consumer perception. The truth is, any contemporary iPhone or iPad is already a more capable console than the Switch 2. At the same time, Apple is hardly associated with gaming - rather the opposite. A focused push in this direction with a subsidized device and a nice platform of games might be a way to change it. Yes, the market is saturated and it would be an expensive endeavor, but I think that Apple has the resources to pull it off.
As to the rest, I fully agree with you. And that’s the beauty of it - the “console” I envision would run a custom version of iOS and all games would be fully compatible with other Apple devices.
This is all about market share and user perception, not software.
I agree with this and wrote something similar (not the stand-alone console but the approach) a year or two ago.
This would require them to actually develop a gaming input device, which Apple seems allergic to doing.
Even with existing platforms Apple could dedicate $100m or something and develop their own controllers, increase the porting toolkit support, entice Steam to more natively integrate – oh God, another “app store alternative” so that won’t happen – and importantly create some handheld controllers of their own for Vision Pro and the successor model. Couple that with a gaming focused AppleTV with a low-latency stack and a dedicated “couch” Games store that has AA / indie and a novel controller that at least matches the configurations of other platforms with some Apple flair to entice gamers.
I think the problem is leadership. No one in their upper ranks actually plays traditional games or cares about them, and the industry itself is not doing so great right now despite being large, the ROI is starting to be wobbly and there are a lot of cutbacks recently.
Fully agree it’s something Apple should subsidize outright for a couple years to get a foothold, similar to how they did that for AppleTV+ but to a lesser financial degree.
No gamer wants to buy a computer that you can never upgrade. Get your gaming Mac ordered right the first time because there is no improving it later. Part of PC gaming is the builds themselves which have come a long way and in many cases actually look really good. I would never think about a Mac for serious gaming, or any gaming at all simply because Apple has made computers to be obsolete and to fill landfills rather then allow for some upgradeability and thus extend the life of the computer. Good thing Apple is super green!
There are more Macs being sold each year than gaming-grade desktop PCs. The DIY box market is smaller than you might think.
Someone is buying out all the 5090's, 5080's and 5070's. Someone is upgrading their PC and making it better rather than buying a whole new computer. The gaming market as we all know is massive and bigger than the movie industry, I think it is a safe bet to say Mac users are not the driving force behind that.
Exactly. That’s why no one ever buys consoles and the steam deck sold zero units.
Oh, I am sure that all of them are being bought out, the big questions is how much of them is being produced. I haven't seen any reasonable estimates, so I simply don't know (although I suspect that the market for high-end gaming GPUs is well under 1 million units per year).
I did find this article discussing gaming PC shipments and it's forecasts. According to this data, 2024 sold around 20 million gaming-grade desktop PCs (defined as having an RTX 4050 equivalent or better). Apple shipped over 22 million Macs in 2024.
not hard when there’s about a couple thousand in existence
How would that work? iOS apps can't typically run on MacOS, so how would games created for this 'ConsoleOS' also run on both iOS and MacOS?
Would there need to be three separate binaries and, if so, how much extra work would that entail for AAA games?
I would appreciate upgrade-ability but Macs on average last longer than PCs and are more recyclable. So if anything, there are probably more PC components filling up landfills due to the constant upgrading.
Not much extra work at all. Some fine-tuning to adapt to each platform, of course, but probably less of a problem for games that don't need to customize the UI. Pretty much all gaming-related iOS APIs work natively on MacOS as well via https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/mac-catalyst
Extra binaries: most likely, but that's less of an issue (and there are ways to simplify the process).
But you said a key barrier to developing games for MacOS is that "devs frequently complain about subtle bugs and unpredictable behavior of Metal". So wouldn't they still need to fix Metal in MacOS for these games to work properly in MacOS?
And if they were to fix Metal in MacOS, wouldn't that eliminate the key reason to create a separate 'ConsoleOS' in the first place?
Last edited:
Apple hardware shouldn't be seen the same as a console. The PS5 you bought in 2020 is the same as the PS5 you can buy in 2025. A game will run on them identically. The same isn't true for Mac hardware. The API may be console like, but I don't think the hardware should be seen that way.
This is not just macOS specific — the hardware and software is unified. I think it goes without saying that Apple needs to be consistent and swift in addressing bugs and tooling issues on their platforms.
IMO the biggest blocker to gaming on Mac is cultural. The prevalent attitude is "Mac's aren't for gaming", which makes both gamers and game developers steer away from Apple for most part. The console idea is primarily meant to break the stereotype. Dislodging entrenched beliefs is hard.
IMHO, it boils down to market share. Folks getting Macs do not have gaming in mind. Apple may have sold 22m Macs in 2024, and all of those Macs can play AAA games, but it unfortunately does not translate into a market for game publisher to seriously push titles for macOS.
I would say it will take more time. Young adults graduating into the workforce, who has used Macs and who continue to want to use Macs will hopefully translate into a bigger market for game publisher. Once Macs are popular with gamers, Apple will be incentivized to released gaming specific gears, i.e. monstrously large GPUs SoCs that will not cause an arm or a leg. So it's the proverbial chicken and egg issue.
IMHO, whether APIs are good or not is immaterial. As long as publishers thinks they can make money, they will be willing to jump thru hoops. I read that PS3 (or was it PS2?) was notoriously difficult to develop for, but it didn't stop games getting published for it.
Folks evangeliging Apple to release/or fund publisher original AAA titles are missing the point IMHO. Short term buzz that will not do anything substantial long term. Still boils down to market share, or maybe the perception of it.