Ahh yes. The "20-year old gamer" meme. Why don't you show your ignorance a bit more and say they're living in their parent's basement
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.
Five Games Worth Firing Up to Show Off Your New MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh yes it is for FCP video editing, otherwise those media decoder would be a bit of overkill for video consumption, though buying Mac to enjoy high quality video is definitely a use case.
It is true that neither Apple nor PC manufacturer care much about what people are using their $4500 machine for, but the chips Apple put inside definitely is tailored to a certain group of users, quite a few of whom are doing video editing every single day.
To get decent fps you'll need the $3500+ M1 Max models which require ~$140/year subscription for Crossover and Parallels to play older games since more recent DirectX 12 and Vulkan games aren't supported or not working. For the games that do work they're slower than a gaming laptop with RTX3060 at a third of the price.
You can delete your own posts but you can't delete your quotes in other people's posts.
Not necessarily. the issue with games isn't the cpu code, it's the graphics code. And each platform has its own set of api's. Metal is impressive, but apple proprietary. Directx has a huge install base. Consoles have a locked in set of fans.
if Gaming is a primary use case, then the m1 macs (or even the intel ones and boot camp) aren't the best choice, and aren't going to be. It's not about capabilities, it's about cost vs tam (total addressable market). Porting civ vi was a good trade off. Porting others, not so much. The flip side of a gaming laptop is size, weight, battery life, etc. it's optimized for gaming. Tradeoffs on both sides, and everyone has to make their own choice.
gaming for me is a nice to have. theres enough good titles to keep me busy for a long time, especially with parallels in the mix (assuming microsoft doesn't pull the plug). I'll miss the next dragon age installment, but to be fair, I gave up on inquisition because of the grind anyway...and that was the last pc title I had my shadow.tech account for. after using it, honestly, I think cloud gaming is definitely viable in the future, so this whole debate will eventually be moot.
Can I quote you on that?You can delete your own posts but you can't delete your quotes in other people's posts.
Not anywhere close. The environment that a program runs in is much more than just the CPU - it’s the OS that it interacts with, the expectations that OS imposes on the program, the hardware the program is controlling directly (if any), and the APIs it has to use to interact with the OS, the graphics hardware, the other I/O hardware, the network, etc. Many of those are wildly different between a Switch and a Mac.
It’s a bit like saying, you know how to drive a car, it’s a matter of sitting in a seat and manipulating various controls to control the vehicle’s movements, while paying attention to other vehicles and the environment around you… well. that same basic description fits flying an airplane, so if you can drive a car, you can fly an airplane, right?
Indeed. People always get hung up on this, “but it’s the same CPU” - which would be important if developers were still writing large amounts of code in assembly language, but a language even only as high level as C abstracts away the most of the CPU differences. Porting from one CPU to another is not (or should not be) a big deal. Porting to a different set of APIs can be a very big deal.
Last edited:
No, I get what people and Stella mean. I think you have a misunderstanding or are only comprehending at a shallow level. Does branding in a Twitch stream not count as marketing for customization? After all, in a stream they literally spell out what their PC gear is.
My point was you can get a top of the line GTX mobile GPU in a PC laptop for less than a M1 Max. There was nothing more to that.
I should've clarified that PCs offer both brand and choice with a heavier emphasis on choice. The beauty of the PC world is that you can choose how you equip your PC setup. I mentioned Razer to attempt to keep the conversation simpler, but it seems that backfired.
Mobile gaming is strawman because the discussion here is about laptop/desktop gaming. It's superfluous to move goal posts and grasp at the notion that the convergence will appeal to developers. The UX for mobile gaming and non-mobile gaming are two very different paradigms. People in this forum were excited when you could play iOS games on a Mac. Please share how that is going now, specifically the conversion rate.
English is my first language, and I understand what you're meaning to say although it was poorly written.
The contradiction here is that past trajectories are derived from facts. I was calling out your "iWatch" snippet because that was a prediction based on a trajectory.
You're moving the goalpost in this very reply. If we're still talking about the kind of dominant position Apple Silicon will take in the gaming industry, UX and conversation rates are irrelevant. Apple Silicon is just being introduced on desktops and laptops this year. You do know that, don't you?
Because you're desperate in trying to find anything that would bolster your argument and not know that it defeats the very thing you're arguing for, which is the customizability and cost-benefit of a desktop PC.
This is not a clarification. You're just backtracking.
You said this, didn't you?
It's really dishonest to say A relies on X, and B relies on Y, and that's why B is successful, then turn around to say B relies both on X and Y. You essentially negated the very thing you claimed previously. You're being dishonest. I don't even know what "keep the conversation simpler" mean. The conversation wasn't complicated to begin with.
You lost the plot again. Please read the thread that you quoted me from. The "iWatch" comment wasn't based on a trajectory at all. Your reading comprehension is deplorable. Please enlighten us on how it is a trajectory.The contradiction here is that past trajectories are derived from facts. I was calling out your "iWatch" snippet because that was a prediction based on a trajectory.
You probably felt pretty good about yourself that you finally dug out something that you think is remotely injurious to the person you're debating with, although completely irrelevant. You're not debating the topic. You're attempting to harm a person's credibility. Bravo. You failed miserably. You failed on two fronts: you couldn't be bothered to read the thread and didn't realize I was replying to robertcoogan, who just opined on what was revealed in a book about Tim Cook. You failed a second time because you don't even know what "trajectory" means. It was in 2014. Tim took over Apple in August 2011. The book was published in March 2014. What "trajectory" are you referring to?
I said: You can't make predictions about the future purely based on the trajectory of the past. Purely = 100%. It doesn't mean you can't make predictions based on trajectory. It means you exercise discernment on what other facts you want to take into account, facts that aren't necessary "of the past" but of the here and now. And that your predictions aren't 100% trajectory-based, but take into account contingent factors, such as emergent technologies (which aren't part of any kind of trajectory). Why is this so hard to understand for you?
And if you want to dig through other people's posting history, have some decency to allow other people to do the same with yours. You'd just come across as shady otherwise.
Last edited:
For Mobile games Apple Silicon is already dominant (revenue/profits not market share). For Console/PC Gaming, it probably wont ever be dominant (for either market share or revenue/profits). Which is the complaint from Apple Gamers.You're moving the goalpost in this very reply. If we're still talking about the kind of dominant position Apple Silicon will take in the gaming industry, UX and conversation rates are irrelevant. Apple Silicon is just being introduced on desktops and laptops this year. You do know that, don't you?
Because you're desperate in trying to find anything that would bolster your argument and not know that it defeats the very thing you're arguing for, which is the customizability and cost-benefit of a desktop PC.
This is not a clarification. You're just backtracking.
You said this, didn't you?
It's really dishonest to say A relies on X, and B relies on Y, and that's why B is successful, then turn around to say B relies both on X and Y. You essentially negated the very thing you claimed previously. You're being dishonest. I don't even know what "keep the conversation simpler" mean. The conversation wasn't complicated to begin with.
You lost the plot again. Please read the thread that you quoted me from. The "iWatch" comment wasn't based on a trajectory at all. Your reading comprehension is deplorable. Please enlighten us on how it is a trajectory.
You probably felt pretty good about yourself that you finally dug out something that you think is remotely injurious to the person you're debating with, although completely irrelevant. You're not debating the topic. You're attempting to harm a person's credibility. Bravo. You failed miserably. You failed on two fronts: you couldn't be bothered to read the thread and didn't realize I was replying to robertcoogan, who just opined on what was revealed in a book about Tim Cook. You failed a second time because you don't even know what "trajectory" means. It was in 2014. Tim took over Apple in August 2011. The book was published in March 2014. What "trajectory" are you referring to?
I said: You can't make predictions about the future purely based on the trajectory of the past. Purely = 100%. It doesn't mean you can't make predictions based on trajectory. It means you exercise discernment on what other facts you want to take into account, facts that aren't necessary "of the past" but of the here and now. And that your predictions aren't 100% trajectory-based, but take into account contingent factors, such as emergent technologies (which aren't part of any kind of trajectory). Why is this so hard to understand for you?
And if you want to dig through other people's posting history, have some decency to allow other people to do the same with yours. You'd just come across as shady otherwise.
I am welcome to being wrong here.
2023 is the year things will start to move in Apple Silicon's favour.
If you've been following, AMD has admitted publicly that the future of computing is very likely to be ARM.
Just look at how many mobile phone makers there were five years ago, and how many are left now. Microsoft Mobile (Lumia), HTC, and most recently LG, amongst others, are all gone. Hardly anybody buys Sony Xperia. Things change quickly in the tech world and five years is a long time. Even if AMD and Microsoft fully embrace ARM in 2022, they won't be able to come out with a competitive product for at least a couple of years and that's the best-case scenario.
Remember the 90s when people change or upgrade their computers on a yearly basis as they did with their mobile phones in the 2000s? Well, it looks like gaming desktop is that next thing to plateau. When you can play 4K at 120 fps or even 8K at 60 fps, even dedicated gamers are unlikely to care so much about customizability. They will start to really care about the quality of the game. Casual gamers will flock to the machine that offers the best cost-benefit ratio.
What will really make or break Apple Silicon's future in gaming is Apple's unwillingness to entice developers to the platform. I think they should invest in up-and-coming game studios to make a blockbuster game for the Mac to get things rolling. The software and hardware are already in place, Metal + Apple Silicon + their technological lead in AR/VR, I don't see them losing.
It's not the hardware, it's the API's. And since Apple refuses to use cross-platform API's, developers will be hesitant to spend the $ to port to a niche (in their eyes) platform for gaming. Metal is great, but if you're a DirectX shop, why would you stand up a whole separate dev team?
Well - once upon a time I was one of those 20-year-old gamerz myself (although I never lived in my parent's basement) - so I'm intimately familiar with the thought patterns.
As you get older you realize that the world is a lot more diverse than you thought... and that there are many people who have different needs/desires than yours and therefore not every solution is going to _for you_. Or, at least, properly functioning adults are able to get to that point.
I hand-built my gaming rigs (and hated Macs) for most of my teens and twenties... until I got one for work. Then I realized that there are more things in life I'd like to pursue than just getting bleeding-edge graphics card drivers to give me a slightly higher 3D-Mark (dating myself!) score.
These days all I own are Macs and I use them for work/hobby and yes, even play... because that's what fits within my particular life.
So, I have enough direct experience with this to say that these people pulling their hair out over the idea of playing games on macs are either 20-year olds... or are acting like it.
Apple is working on it and has been for several years.
And it's not like DirectX is available for the Mac either. It's a war and Apple is doing what it has to do to ensure its ultimate victory.
A game developer will eventually field a separate team for the Mac platform because it's the better platform for gaming. Apple has been eating away at Wintel's market share since 1998 and the trend will continue (this is one prediction where trajectory works well). Windows Phone got pushed out of the mobile market. Intel's chips couldn't compete with Apple Silicon in a battery-powered device. It's just a matter of time. Wintel is too rooted in the x86 architecture to be able to free itself from its shackles. As I keep emphasizing, Microsoft won't be able to support two versions of Windows (x86 and ARM) under the same branding for a prolonged period of time. It's too costly and a marketing nightmare. They will most likely ride the x86 train to the end and introduce a new operating system under a different branding for ARM-based chips.
Apple already has Apple Arcade and Apple TV. It's like their embryonic Steam and Xbox clones. It's really up to Apple whether they want to take gaming seriously. The hardware and software stars are aligned. It's now only a matter of policy. I'm not sure how much Tim Cook has left in his tank. He seems very focused on Apple Car and to a lesser extent, Apple Glass, and that'll probably be his legacy hardware-wise: Apple Car and wearables. Maybe they need a new guy at the helm, who is more attuned to the demographic that's into gaming. Or maybe Apple just has some type of philosophical contempt for mainstream AAA games (similar to that in Apple TV+'s programming). Just the fact that they're willing to put the ports back on MacBook Pro and slap on a 1080p webcam means they are not recalcitrant and that they are willing to listen and give us what we want.
Last edited:
I don't know if I agree that Mac is the better platform for gaming than Windows, why do you think it is a better platform?
It should've been in the future tense but it's pretty self-evident if you've read the entire thread that I'm talking about the future, starting from 2023 to be more precise.
So developers should hold off on making macOS versions of their games till 2023 because that is the magical year that Windows systems will stop being the better platform for their games.
Or they should have macOS versions of their games by 2023 because that is the magical year that Windows systems will stop being the better platform for their games.
That seems fairly optimistic, I am willing to believe, are game developers though?
2023 is when things will start to turn in Apple Silicon's favour because that's the year when the entire Mac lineup will have an Apple Silicon inside. It's not the magical year of anything and I never said 2023 is the year that Apple will dominate the desktop gaming market. It's more of a turning point.
Nokia didn't fall in one day, nor one year, but when people realized iPhone is clearly technologically superior, the sales of Nokia phones plummeted. The same thing will happen with Apple Silicon Macs, albeit in a much longer timeframe because people don't change their computers at the same rate they change phones.
You really have to realize what a quantum leap Apple Silicon has made—double-digit battery life with the kind of graphic performance it can achieve without thermal throttling—it's unheard of. It'll make a lot of games accessible to casual gamers at a good resolution and frame rate. As I said earlier, all it takes is one blockbuster game and that Apple should either work with an up-and-coming studio to make it happen or make the game themselves to showcase what a game optimized for Apple Silicon/Metal looks like. They used to bundle a game called Nanosaur with G3 iMac. They could try something like that again or develop a game and put it on Apple Arcade (since they already offer a free trial).
Most people who buy a Mac, buy a MacBook Air. So people are already on AS.
Including Mac Pro? I don't think so.
The next Mac Pro, if it comes out in 2022, is most likely going to be Intel-based. If Apple plans to transition the entire Mac lineup to Apple Silicon with the next iteration of Mac Pro, it will be introduced in 2023.
Yes, including the Mac Pro. Apple has promised a two year transition, so barring any unforeseen problems the entire lineup will be on Apple Silicon by late 2022. Besides, we already know the specs.
Unforeseen problems like a worldwide chip shortage?
If they really stick to the letter of their promise, they only have till June 22, 2022, to make it all happen. Highly unlikely given TSMC is already at capacity and Mac Pro is hardly a product that they can rush to put an Apple Silicon inside. It was rumoured that an Intel-based Mac Pro will be introduced in 2021. By now, it's pretty evident that that won't materialize. However, there is pressure on Apple to at least do a minor refresh of Mac Pro due to the simple fact that it's already been close to two years since its release. In other words, it's almost certain that
- They'll do a minor refresh before transitioning Mac Pro to Apple Silicon and miss the June 22, 2022 deadline.
- Or they'll skip the minor refresh but give themselves plenty of time to get the first Apple Silicon Mac Pro right and release the Apple Silicon Mac Pro in 2023.
Even if you count the first M1 Mac as the beginning of the two-year transition, November 2022 is their self-imposed deadline. So it's not wrong to say in 2023, the entire Mac lineup will be Apple Silicon.
Apple doesn't have a big ego nor are they fuzzy. Rushing out a Mac Pro just so they can pat themselves on the back for sticking to an artificial deadline that they themselves set? Mac Pro costs a fortune and is on a slower refresh cycle. Putting an Apple Silicon on a Mac Pro requires a near-complete overhaul. I doubt Tim Cook or Johny Srouji is that bad at sorting out priorities when it comes to their flagship and statement machine.
Last edited:
Apple doubled down on being done with the transition a year from now, by the end of 2022. They reiterated it during the MacBook Pro event. The transition *WILL* be complete in 2022.Unforeseen problems like a worldwide chip shortage?
If they really stick to the letter of their promise, they only have till June 22, 2022, to make it all happen. Highly unlikely given TSMC is already at capacity and Mac Pro is hardly a product that they can rush to put an Apple Silicon inside. It was rumoured that an Intel-based Mac Pro will be introduced in 2021. By now, it's pretty evident that that won't materialize. However, there is pressure on Apple to at least do a minor refresh of Mac Pro due to the simple fact that it's already been close to two years since its release. In other words, it's almost certain that
Rest assured that Apple isn't going to do a minor refresh in 2022 and then release a completely new Mac Pro within the same year.
- They'll do a minor refresh before transitioning Mac Pro to Apple Silicon and miss the June 22, 2022 deadline.
- Or they'll skip the minor refresh but give themselves plenty of time to get the first Apple Silicon Mac Pro right and release the Apple Silicon Mac Pro in 2023.
Even if you count the first M1 Mac as the beginning of the two-year transition, November 2022 is their self-imposed deadline. So it's not wrong to say in 2023, the entire Mac lineup will be Apple Silicon.
Apple doesn't have a big ego nor are they fuzzy. Rushing out a Mac Pro just so they can pat themselves on the back for sticking to an artificial deadline that they themselves set? Mac Pro costs a fortune and is on a slower refresh cycle. Putting an Apple Silicon on a Mac Pro requires a near-complete overhaul. I doubt Tim Cook or Johny Srouji is that bad at sorting out priorities when it comes to their flagship and statement machine.
Didn't they just do a refresh by adding the RDNA2 line of GPUs to the Mac Pro?Unforeseen problems like a worldwide chip shortage?
If they really stick to the letter of their promise, they only have till June 22, 2022, to make it all happen. Highly unlikely given TSMC is already at capacity and Mac Pro is hardly a product that they can rush to put an Apple Silicon inside. It was rumoured that an Intel-based Mac Pro will be introduced in 2021. By now, it's pretty evident that that won't materialize. However, there is pressure on Apple to at least do a minor refresh of Mac Pro due to the simple fact that it's already been close to two years since its release. In other words, it's almost certain that
Rest assured that Apple isn't going to do a minor refresh in 2022 and then release a completely new Mac Pro within the same year.
- They'll do a minor refresh before transitioning Mac Pro to Apple Silicon and miss the June 22, 2022 deadline.
- Or they'll skip the minor refresh but give themselves plenty of time to get the first Apple Silicon Mac Pro right and release the Apple Silicon Mac Pro in 2023.
Even if you count the first M1 Mac as the beginning of the two-year transition, November 2022 is their self-imposed deadline. So it's not wrong to say in 2023, the entire Mac lineup will be Apple Silicon.
Apple doesn't have a big ego nor are they fuzzy. Rushing out a Mac Pro just so they can pat themselves on the back for sticking to an artificial deadline that they themselves set? Mac Pro costs a fortune and is on a slower refresh cycle. Putting an Apple Silicon on a Mac Pro requires a near-complete overhaul. I doubt Tim Cook or Johny Srouji is that bad at sorting out priorities when it comes to their flagship and statement machine.