Fortnite for iOS and macOS Will No Longer Be Cross-Platform When New Season Launches

[DragonX]

Same with an iPad Pro, I didn't see the appeal really until had one for two days, got one and became the favorite device... sure it won’t play Doom, but I don’t expect it too... however there are some surprises, it can edit 4K, 6K and 8K video in real-time that some machines (including iMacs and Mac Pros and of course windows PCs) just can’t. These hidden surprises will for sure come up to surface for the Apple Silicon era.

How come 4K video editing is relevant to gaming on Apple devices? You want to prove the point that Apple devices are not meant for gaming. Well, now I agree!

Nope.

Spoken like a true member of the PC Master Race.

I got news for you. I enjoy the real beauty of AAA titles on my gorgeous 27-inch display just fine at 1440p/60fps on ultra settings, thank you very much.

Don’t be daft. The fact that the most powerful desktop GPUs will always outperform the most powerful tablet GPUs is a function of the laws of physics, not of any artificial limitations imposed by Apple.

No matter how powerful mobile GPUs become, it will always be possible to drive any GPU architecture faster by putting it in a case that can accommodate more power and cooling.

I totally get that it would be cool to be able to play the latest AAA games in gorgeous fidelity on the go, and that streaming is the most promising way of overcoming the power and thermal constraints of mobile or notebook GPUs, but I still don’t understand how you expect to overcome the controller and UX constraints. So again, my question to you is: why would you want to play Doom Eternal on a tablet, with only touch-screen controls, instead of with keyboard and mouse?

Come on, haha get out of the walled garden! 2160p/120fps really makes a difference.

Don't forget that Apple never upgrade their hardware with powerful GPUs - nor can you do it. No matter how powerful games comes out, no matter how new is your new iMac you're always stuck with the same underperformed hardware that you can't neither upgrade nor overclock (again I'm not talking about crazy-priced Mac Pro).

I like to play games on the tablet, I just like it. Can't do anything about it. It's really cool. Also if you play on the phone you can get a dedicated controller. Also you can use a Stadia controller and play anywhere in the world, at friends' place, in the cafe, on your trip - anywhere. You're not bound to desktop - there are a lot of benefits. I'm not here to sell Stadia, I just like to play cool games the coolest ways possible.

Not possible with Apple unfortunately, anymore. Greedy walled garden shrinks and becomes smaller with every day.

 

[Arbuthnott]

epic values that 30% more than the 70%

It’s probably the large part of ownership of Epic by Tik Tok talking. Pursuing Chinese interests that are more strategic than the profits

 

[Arbuthnott]

Greedy walled garden shrinks and becomes smaller with every day.

You are absolutely right. Shrank from one Trillion capital value to two Trillion this year alone. Must be all those shareholders baling out because Epic doesn’t want to play. Much more shrinkage of this kind could be a real worry. Thanks for pointing it out!

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Come on, haha get out of the walled garden!

I’m not in the walled garden. I game on macOS and in Windows via Boot Camp, not on iOS or iPad OS.

2160p/120fps really makes a difference.

I can play slightly older AAA games in 2160p (at 60 fps) on ultra settings on my 27-inch display, and with modern anti-aliasing, I hardly notice a difference in visual quality between 2160p and 1440p (I’m talking about moving scenes, of course, not about static screenshots), whereas I do notice a marked difference between 1440p and 1080p.

In my own (completely subjective) experience, 1440p is an optimal resolution for a 27-inch display that’s sitting two and half feet from my eyes. Increasing the resolution beyond 1440p yields diminishing returns while greatly increasing the computational demands.

Obviously, if you have an even larger display, then the difference between 1440p and 2160p would be more noticeable, or perhaps you just have better eyes than I do.

I’m willing to believe that 120 fps makes a difference. Perhaps I’ll find out for myself one day. Nevertheless, when I game on my iMac, I can play most of the latest AAA games on ultra settings on a display that fills most of my field of view at the highest resolution that makes a noticeable difference to me and at a frame rate that appears buttery smooth, so you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not persuaded that I’m missing out on the true AAA gaming experience.

Don't forget that Apple never upgrade their hardware with powerful GPUs - nor can you do it. No matter how powerful games comes out, no matter how new is your new iMac you're always stuck with the same underperformed hardware that you can't neither upgrade nor overclock (again I'm not talking about crazy-priced Mac Pro).

With eGPU support from Apple, this is no longer entirely true. It’s somewhat more expensive than simply swapping out a graphics card (expect to pay about US$300 for an eGPU chassis), and Apple doesn’t officially support using an eGPU in Boot Camp (and with the advent of Apple Silicon, almost surely never will), but it can be done. (Alas, the easiest solution currently is to have a Radeon eGPU for gaming in macOS and an Nvidia eGPU for gaming in Windows. )

Look, I’m one of those Mac users who’d actually like to see Apple go back to selling a consumer tower with expansion slots precisely so I can upgrade the graphics card. Do I expect Apple will do so anytime in the foreseeable future? No. Do I think it would be good for Apple’s stock price? I have no idea. Do I expect Apple to cater to my own niche desires? No. But that’s what I’d like.

I looked into game streaming myself (on macOS) about a year ago, not because I want to game on mobile devices, but because I wondered if that might be a better or more cost-effective way to play the latest AAA games with the highest graphical settings on my desktop, but there were just too many tradeoffs and compromises. A year ago, at least, game streaming was not the panacea for which desktop gamers were hoping (neither on macOS nor on Windows).

I like to play games on the tablet, I just like it. Can't do anything about it. It's really cool. Also if you play on the phone you can get a dedicated controller. Also you can use a Stadia controller and play anywhere in the world, at friends' place, in the cafe, on your trip - anywhere. You're not bound to desktop - there are a lot of benefits. I'm not here to sell Stadia, I just like to play cool games the coolest ways possible.

Fair enough.

For myself, I’m perfectly content to play AAA games without any noticeable compromises on my iMac when I’m at home, and to do other things when I’m out and about, like seeing and hearing the world around me, or conversing with friends, or even reading a good book.

 

[DragonX]

I’m not in the walled garden. I game on macOS and in Windows via Boot Camp, not on iOS or iPad OS.

I can play slightly older AAA games in 2160p (at 60 fps) on ultra settings on my 27-inch display, and with modern anti-aliasing, I hardly notice a difference in visual quality between 2160p and 1440p (I’m talking about moving scenes, of course, not about static screenshots), whereas I do notice a marked difference between 1440p and 1080p.

In my own (completely subjective) experience, 1440p is an optimal resolution for a 27-inch display that’s sitting two and half feet from my eyes. Increasing the resolution beyond 1440p yields diminishing returns while greatly increasing the computational demands.

Obviously, if you have an even larger display, then the difference between 1440p and 2160p would be more noticeable, or perhaps you just have better eyes than I do.

I’m willing to believe that 120 fps makes a difference. Perhaps I’ll find out for myself one day. Nevertheless, when I game on my iMac, I can play most of the latest AAA games on ultra settings on a display that fills most of my field of view at the highest resolution that makes a noticeable difference to me and at a frame rate that appears buttery smooth, so you’ll have to pardon me if I’m not persuaded that I’m missing out on the true AAA gaming experience.

With eGPU support from Apple, this is no longer entirely true. It’s somewhat more expensive than simply swapping out a graphics card (expect to pay about US$300 for an eGPU chassis), and Apple doesn’t officially support using an eGPU in Boot Camp (and with the advent of Apple Silicon, almost surely never will), but it can be done. (Alas, the easiest solution currently is to have a Radeon eGPU for gaming in macOS and an Nvidia eGPU for gaming in Windows. )

Look, I’m one of those Mac users who’d actually like to see Apple go back to selling a consumer tower with expansion slots precisely so I can upgrade the graphics card. Do I expect Apple will do so anytime in the foreseeable future? No. Do I think it would be good for Apple’s stock price? I have no idea. Do I expect Apple to cater to my own niche desires? No. But that’s what I’d like.

I looked into game streaming myself (on macOS) about a year ago, not because I want to game on mobile devices, but because I wondered if that might be a better or more cost-effective way to play the latest AAA games with the highest graphical settings on my desktop, but there were just too many tradeoffs and compromises. A year ago, at least, game streaming was not the panacea for which desktop gamers were hoping (neither on macOS nor on Windows).

Fair enough.

For myself, I’m perfectly content to play AAA games without any noticeable compromises on my iMac when I’m at home, and to do other things when I’m out and about, like seeing and hearing the world around me, or conversing with friends, or even reading a good book.

I totally respect your configuration! And 1440p probably works great unless you see the pixels, I don't know. Probably works for you - great!

Now you see to play great AAA games and work on your computer you need three GPUs (1 GPU embedded in iMac, 1 eGPU with Radeon for gaming on macOS and 1 eGPU with NVidia for gaming on Windows) and at least 2 screens on your table! (because you can't connect your internal iMac display into any of your eGPUs). Well, that's cool. I can't imagine the price of it, but probably it's comparable to a Mac Pro.

Now let's get back to our conversation - Apple Arcade vs Game Streaming of AAA titles. Imagine you really don't need 3 GPUs and 2 screens. You basically need 1 gaming controller and a subscription. And you don't pay for eGPUs and GPU upgrades - it's included in the subscription. So it's like 50 times cheaper.

That's what Game Streaming is all about. You don't even need to upgrade your computer. Maybe that's what Apple is fighting against as well. They need your money and to do that the only way they see it is keeping you inside a walled garden (e.g. Apple Arcade - so you don't play really mindblowing games, only the titles that Apple selected to work on their underclocked configurations. And then do their propaganda persuading that's the best graphics ).

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Now you see to play great AAA games and work on your computer you need three GPUs (1 GPU embedded in iMac, 1 eGPU with Radeon for gaming on macOS and 1 eGPU with NVidia for gaming on Windows) and at least 2 screens on your table! (because you can't connect your internal iMac display into any of your eGPUs). Well, that's cool. I can't imagine the price of it, but probably it's comparable to a Mac Pro.

It seems you misunderstood me. eGPUs are a possible path for future graphics upgrades. Not cheap, but certainly far less expensive than a Mac Pro, and less expensive also than the cost of a new iMac with the top-of-the-line internal discrete GPU. (Also, you wouldn’t really need two eGPUs, unless you wanted to game all-out in both macOS and Windows.)

I don’t own an eGPU. Currently I’m able to play most new AAA games on ultra settings at 1440p/60fps on the internal AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48.

When my iMac’s GPU starts to show its age (which I don’t expect will be for a couple of years), then I might buy an eGPU, or a new Apple Silicon iMac, or build a Wintel box, or possibly even subscribe to a game streaming service. Who knows? I’ll have to evaluate the options and see what makes the most sense.

Now let's get back to our conversation - Apple Arcade vs Game Streaming of AAA titles.

You’ll notice I never expressed an opinion about Apple Arcade. In fact, I don’t have one, because I’ve never tried it. But if I did and liked it enough to subscribe, I’d certainly never restrict myself to it. One can still buy games outside Apple Arcade even if one does subscribe to it.

Imagine you really don't need 3 GPUs and 2 screens.

I don’t have to imagine. Everything currently runs just fine and dandy on my internal Radeon Pro Vega 48.

You basically need 1 gaming controller and a subscription. And you don't pay for eGPUs and GPU upgrades - it's included in the subscription. So it's like 50 times cheaper.

That's what Game Streaming is all about. You don't even need to upgrade your computer.

Game streaming is an exciting prospect, I don’t deny. As I said above, when it comes time to upgrade, I’ll have to evaluate the current state of the technology. When I last researched it, about a year ago, the reports I read suggested that it fell short of its promise. I don’t recall off the top of my head exactly what the issues were, but I think that latency, visual quality, and an inability to mod games the way I want were all issues.

Maybe that's what Apple is fighting against as well. They need your money and to do that the only way they see it is keeping you inside a walled garden (e.g. Apple Arcade - so you don't play really mindblowing games, only the titles that Apple selected to work on their underclocked configurations. And then do their propaganda persuading that's the best graphics ).

I don’t know what Apple’s objections are to game streaming on iOS and iPad OS. I’ve never researched the issue, so I don’t have an opinion on it.

From what I’ve read, Apple’s mobile GPUs outperform their rivals’ mobile GPUs. I can’t imagine that Apple is intentionally hobbling the graphics performance of their devices any more than is absolutely necessary to meet their thermal and power constraints. (Remember, every manufacturer’s phones and tablets are thin.)

Don’t take my word for it. Read what AnandTech had to say last October.

Remember, though, I’m strictly a desktop gamer, so I don’t really have a dog in this particular fight.

 

[pasamio]

The App Store is not a Store. Fundamentally is the means to install Apps in 50% of US population. So it’s in the critical path to access the market with no competition. The competition is happening in another space, the device space, not in the digital business space. This is in no way comparable to regular stores. Much less specialty computing devices such as consoles.

What makes iPhones “general purpose computing devices” and consoles “specialty computing devices”?

And why would that make a difference?

Well you see the Xbox is a speciality computing device that ships with an AMD CPU using their Jaguar microarchitecture and an AMD GPU based on the Graphics Core Next architecture. The Playstation also leverages these architectures as well. They use the same fundamental CPU and GPU design that is available in the commercial AMD CPU and GPUs. Completely specialty, you wouldn't even be able to run a standard operating system like Linux on these consoles because of how special the CPUs are.

The iPhone is the epitome of general purpose computing device with the Apple specific custom A series chip with image processors, neural acceleration cores and their own tile based GPU rendering cores. The iPhone is so general purpose that even Windows just directly installs completely unmodified and leverages all of the custom hardware instructions just out of the box.

 

[DragonX]

Well you see the Xbox is a speciality computing device that ships with an AMD CPU using their Jaguar microarchitecture and an AMD GPU based on the Graphics Core Next architecture. The Playstation also leverages these architectures as well. They use the same fundamental CPU and GPU design that is available in the commercial AMD CPU and GPUs. Completely specialty, you wouldn't even be able to run a standard operating system like Linux on these consoles because of how special the CPUs are.

The iPhone is the epitome of general purpose computing device with the Apple specific custom A series chip with image processors, neural acceleration cores and their own tile based GPU rendering cores. The iPhone is so general purpose that even Windows just directly installs completely unmodified and leverages all of the custom hardware instructions just out of the box.

Waaaat Are you kidding? Or this serious? Have you tried to install Windows on your iPhone? Windows doesn't support ARM (iPhone CPU) yet, at least public releases. You cannot download Windows and install it on the iPhone "directly". Some kind of emulation is probably possible if you're a developer and have access to XCode etc. But this quite a crazy way of running software.

It seems you misunderstood me. eGPUs are a possible path for future graphics upgrades. Not cheap, but certainly far less expensive than a Mac Pro, and less expensive also than the cost of a new iMac with the top-of-the-line internal discrete GPU. (Also, you wouldn’t really need two eGPUs, unless you wanted to game all-out in both macOS and Windows.)

I don’t own an eGPU. Currently I’m able to play most new AAA games on ultra settings at 1440p/60fps on the internal AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48.

When my iMac’s GPU starts to show its age (which I don’t expect will be for a couple of years), then I might buy an eGPU, or a new Apple Silicon iMac, or build a Wintel box, or possibly even subscribe to a game streaming service. Who knows? I’ll have to evaluate the options and see what makes the most sense.

I'm with you on that! Let's have options. And new Intel iMacs are are definitely decent computers for gaming.

You’ll notice I never expressed an opinion about Apple Arcade. In fact, I don’t have one, because I’ve never tried it. But if I did and liked it enough to subscribe, I’d certainly never restrict myself to it. One can still buy games outside Apple Arcade even if one does subscribe to it.

I don’t have to imagine. Everything currently runs just fine and dandy on my internal Radeon Pro Vega 48.

Game streaming is an exciting prospect, I don’t deny. As I said above, when it comes time to upgrade, I’ll have to evaluate the current state of the technology. When I last researched it, about a year ago, the reports I read suggested that it fell short of its promise. I don’t recall off the top of my head exactly what the issues were, but I think that latency, visual quality, and an inability to mod games the way I want were all issues.

I don’t know what Apple’s objections are to game streaming on iOS and iPad OS. I’ve never researched the issue, so I don’t have an opinion on it.

I'm not saying Arcade is bad as it is. Arcade is one of the options, why not. The problem is Apple who wants to limit everybody who is using their devices - just to the Arcade. Have a look at it! Just have a look at it and compare to your iMac Bootcamp games.

From what I’ve read, Apple’s mobile GPUs outperform their rivals’ mobile GPUs. I can’t imagine that Apple is intentionally hobbling the graphics performance of their devices any more than is absolutely necessary to meet their thermal and power constraints. (Remember, every manufacturer’s phones and tablets are thin.)

They do that a lot to stop the fans spinning. And from what I hear about thermal constraints on Apple Silicon processors - Apple emphasizes that a lot - I can see that there will be even more throttling on new Apple ARM devices. But let's see. We don't know for sure anything about that yet. So far their Developer units are not meant for gaming at all.

Don’t take my word for it. Read what AnandTech had to say last October.

Remember, though, I’m strictly a desktop gamer, so I don’t really have a dog in this particular fight.

Arcade is for very basic gaming, it's a pity Apple stops us from playing real games on their tablets and other devices by denying streaming. People would switch to cheap Android tablets. It will be win win for all competitors and customers but battle lost for Apple forever. I think it's a big mistake.

 

[pasamio]

Waaaat Are you kidding? Or this serious? Have you tried to install Windows on your iPhone? Windows doesn't support ARM (iPhone CPU) yet, at least public releases. You cannot download Windows and install it on the iPhone "directly". Some kind of emulation is probably possible if you're a developer and have access to XCode etc. But this quite a crazy way of running software.

I was indeed totally kidding and being entirely sarcastic. I was trying to highlight the obviously ludicrous statement that the device that is so custom is regarded as "general purpose" whilst the device that can run Linux is considered "specialty". It's one of the Epic talking points and I thought it would be funny to lampshade it with the link in there to installing Linux on a console.

 

[David.Kennedy]

the one in which Moss-Magnuson

The one in which Moss-Magnuson would consider this to be illegal tying.

There aren’t many consumer protections in the USA, but the ones that do exist take a dim view of product tying and prior restraint.

Why?

Because it’s contrary to the economic goals of the US, where choice has been a highly-valued part for 200 years. In short, it’s contrary to public policy.

Apple will eventually lose here, and when they do, exactly zero people will come back and say “I was wrong”.