Maybe I'm, misunderstanding your post - so are you're saying Apple can compete with PS5, Xbox X and the PC for gaming and running AAA games but doesn't need a powerful GPU to do that?
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.
Future for Mac games in M1 era
- Thread starter cocoua
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
With respect, I believe some of you are really making a big deal out of nothing.
Apple under Steve Jobs (originally) actively discouraged and tried to minimize the overall significance of games on the Macintosh platform because of the concern it would take away from the Macintosh's credibility as a computer for use in businesses. However, Apple of the late 1990s is a very different company than in days of old. Apple likes to show off good games because there's a lot of money to be made there, and they know it.
As for the M1 in all of this... Look: most instances of sold hardware (smart phones, tablets, gaming consoles) are already rocking some type of ARM hardware. Moreover, it's my understanding Microsoft is going to be embracing it for use with their own OS and crown jewels. If that's true, then what that means (at least to me) is once a viable process is devised for other computer makers to go with that instead of x86, they probably will. And let's be honest here: most computer makers out there aren't Apple, or IBM, or HP. They don't give a darn about anything other than making money. As Microsoft embraces ARM for the desktop, software developers will probably look at porting for it. Once those things happen, it could easily be that the "standard PC" is no longer x86, but ARM.
All of this is to say, it's an entirely plausible proposition that in the next few years, we'll be back to the same situation the Mac has been at: it'll run whatever software is thrown at it.
Obviously, all that could fail to happen, and Apple could face total embarrassment about this.
That said, here's a question for the more knowledgeable here: Given that speculative execution and the technologies used to employ it are the way a lot of modern malware are able to hijack systems, does ARM in general, or Apple's CPUs, take a different approach that's learned from the mistakes Intel has made? Because, if they have, that would in the long run be a heck of a good selling point to get developers and hardware makers to port, and to market the fact that they're doing so.
Apple under Steve Jobs (originally) actively discouraged and tried to minimize the overall significance of games on the Macintosh platform because of the concern it would take away from the Macintosh's credibility as a computer for use in businesses. However, Apple of the late 1990s is a very different company than in days of old. Apple likes to show off good games because there's a lot of money to be made there, and they know it.
As for the M1 in all of this... Look: most instances of sold hardware (smart phones, tablets, gaming consoles) are already rocking some type of ARM hardware. Moreover, it's my understanding Microsoft is going to be embracing it for use with their own OS and crown jewels. If that's true, then what that means (at least to me) is once a viable process is devised for other computer makers to go with that instead of x86, they probably will. And let's be honest here: most computer makers out there aren't Apple, or IBM, or HP. They don't give a darn about anything other than making money. As Microsoft embraces ARM for the desktop, software developers will probably look at porting for it. Once those things happen, it could easily be that the "standard PC" is no longer x86, but ARM.
All of this is to say, it's an entirely plausible proposition that in the next few years, we'll be back to the same situation the Mac has been at: it'll run whatever software is thrown at it.
Obviously, all that could fail to happen, and Apple could face total embarrassment about this.
That said, here's a question for the more knowledgeable here: Given that speculative execution and the technologies used to employ it are the way a lot of modern malware are able to hijack systems, does ARM in general, or Apple's CPUs, take a different approach that's learned from the mistakes Intel has made? Because, if they have, that would in the long run be a heck of a good selling point to get developers and hardware makers to port, and to market the fact that they're doing so.
Maybe? I mean the Switch gets AAA games and it doesn't compete with them (directly).
And yet the switch is using a nvidia GPU, which is kind of my point, if they want the mac to be a gaming platform, then they'll need to improve the GPU then what's offered in the M1. I'm not saying they won't or can't, just that the M1 right now is insufficient.
I read it's because it's 32-bit and too much work to make it 64-bit. Never played any Diablo game so not a big loss for me but surprising that Feral can remaster many old games for Mac and not Blizzard. Go Feral!
Good point! I think I forget how long these games have been around, as much as I love them. Hopefully Feral can work their magic!I read it's because it's 32-bit and too much work to make it 64-bit. Never played any Diablo game so not a big loss for me but surprising that Feral can remaster many old games for Mac and not Blizzard. Go Feral!
Feral wrote recently on Facebook "We're unlikely to announce at E3, but we've got some excellent titles planned for 2021."
Have they done day/date ports before? Do they have any original games, or are they considered a "porting house" only?Feral wrote recently on Facebook "We're unlikely to announce at E3, but we've got some excellent titles planned for 2021."
They are and have been the most popular and dedicated Mac porting house and have ported most of the big Mac titles. They've ported the Tomb Raider series, Bioshock 1-2 and remastered, Borderlands 1, Deus EX: Human Revolution and Mankind Divided, Alien Isolation, Company of Heroes, Total War series, Hitman and XCOM 2 just to mention a few. They have "Feral Radar" where the publish cryptic clues about upcoming games.
They also port to Linux, iOS, Android and Switch.
Feral Interactive | Home of Mac, Linux, Switch & Mobile Games
Welcome to the home of Feral Interactive. Where great games meet new audiences on Mac, Linux, Switch and Mobile.
www.feralinteractive.com
Not sure what you're saying. Do you mean performance? The Switch GPU is years behind the competition, the M1 GPU is much more powerful. Or do you mean API? Then the GPU doesn't really matter and Apple has to switch to Vulkan.
Of course if they want to compete with PC games, then they need something much better on 30x0 level, at least for games.
Its kind of an apples and oranges comparison, I didn't bring in the switch as an example, but the other member did and yes the current GPU is underpowered but yet its mostly a hand held device, the new Switch (which should be announced today), is purportedly capable of 4k gaming on a tv.
Yes, that's my main point, or at least one of them from my earlier post. If Apple does indeed wish to have the Mac as a viable gaming platform wanting to compete directly against consoles and the PC, then it needs a much better GPU then what is available.
As I said earlier, there are a number of obstacles in front of apple to make Macs a gaming platform, the GPU is but one hurdle. My uneducated thinking and its only my opinion, is that the prospect of profits is rather small, where as the investment to make it happen is exceedingly high. I don't see apple going full force to alter the current landscape for the Mac (at least in terms of gaming).
The Switch’s GPU is only 0.6 GFlops, compared to the M1’s 2.6 GFlops. And it does get a significant amount of home use in the stand. So it is possible to build a major platform on exclusives, style of content, franchises, all-around good gameplay, and not to depend on massive amounts of GPU compute.
The Wii, Nintendo’s earlier console, was also quite underpowered compared to its contemporaries, but being the first motion gaming platform made it a huge success in console terms (145m hardware units sold). And that was not partially a mobile device.
So I think there are avenues for Apple to turn the Mac into a destination platform for games, where in order to play platform exclusives gamers would buy a Mac, even as today there are people who buy all the various consoles.
No new Switch announced. Then again, they've said earlier this year that there won't be a new Switch anytime soon. Nintendo won't need a new Switch, games on the old one will sell just fine.
Nintendo, similar to Apple, has a cult following. They don't need better hardware. They won't provide top-notch games when it comes to visuals, they have their own style. And I'm pretty sure they care little about 3rd party games. Nintendo lost the graphics-game (hello Mode 7) after the SNES. They tried with the N64 and failed, they tried with the GC and failed, after that they must have realized that whatever graphics they provide, people will still buy the IP, no matter what. That and keeping demand up by not supplying enough hardware works for them financially.
Technically they lost the game to Sony and MS.
Indeed. I've done the math for this in another thread. It's just not feasible for Apple (or anyone making games) to have the Mac as a gaming platform and port games, unless Apple buys Sony and MS and completely changes the gaming market as we know it. They're doing fine as is and have plenty of small indie games on iOS. That's as good as it gets.
The M1’s GPU whups the switch gpu. Just because it’s nvidia doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s still on Maxwell, and all rumors of a switch pro point to the new cpu being Pascal. Still behind the M1.
I’m certain we’ll still get ports. Nobody’s going to make bespoke games for the Mac, ever.
To a certain degree, we'll get ports. Mostly for indie games using Unity/Unreal, not heavily customized. It's just not feasible porting anything else. Take a $100M game with a custom engine, costs for porting it over depends on how complex the engine is. For a mid-tier engine, probably at least $50M to make the port, likely a bit more. For complex engines, a lot more.
There aren’t any major games that have bespoke engines made just for them. Many games share common engines often across genres and companies. Unreal being the biggest I can think of. EA uses the Frostbite engine for everything from racing to fps games, Bethesda is still using Gamebryo from Oblivion, Valve still uses Source 2, (notwithstanding that they don’t make games anymore). 2k uses Unreal for everything last I checked and indie stuff uses Unity, which has already announced M-series support. ID uses IDtech 4(?).
Nobody just makes an engine for just one game. If an engine supports Apple’s APIs, then it will work.
Apple hasn’t changed their frameworks massively with the M1, and that’s the major compatibility hurdle.
Tell that to Blizzard, they probably don't know.
Many don't do it for one game and then throw it away, they're updating and re-using it. Rockstar is using their own engine for GTA/RDR, Ubis Snowdrop is fairly limited in games using it. Capcom is using custom engines, Nintendo too (among Unreal). It's fairly common.
Even smaller companies/publishers are using custom engines at time. Look at Lords of the Fallen for example, that's a 50+ person game, so somewhat small.
Just supporting Apples API in the engine isn't enough to flip a switch though, that only works for very simple games. I'd say what I do with Unity and Unreal is fairly simple and yet I can't just flip a switch and make it run on other platforms.
I'm teaching shader development for games at a university and those cases (physically based realistic rendering), flipping a switch is good enough. For full AAA games not so much. What happens in the industry is based on money and it costs. The people I'm in touch with working in the game industry are not happy about the Mac, as it's causing a ton of work with little to no benefit and the costs of porting it over are often in the 50% to 90% of the initial development costs.
Meanwhile, the Switch continues to be a WILD success
Gaming is about SO much more than raw hardware capabilities.
I think we’re misunderstanding each other here, I’m in agreement that many engines are too complex to “flip a switch”. And we’re in agreement that companies don’t throw away engines after one game.Tell that to Blizzard, they probably don't know.
Many don't do it for one game and then throw it away, they're updating and re-using it. Rockstar is using their own engine for GTA/RDR, Ubis Snowdrop is fairly limited in games using it. Capcom is using custom engines, Nintendo too (among Unreal). It's fairly common.
Even smaller companies/publishers are using custom engines at time. Look at Lords of the Fallen for example, that's a 50+ person game, so somewhat small.
Just supporting Apples API in the engine isn't enough to flip a switch though, that only works for very simple games. I'd say what I do with Unity and Unreal is fairly simple and yet I can't just flip a switch and make it run on other platforms.
I'm teaching shader development for games at a university and those cases (physically based realistic rendering), flipping a switch is good enough. For full AAA games not so much. What happens in the industry is based on money and it costs. The people I'm in touch with working in the game industry are not happy about the Mac, as it's causing a ton of work with little to no benefit and the costs of porting it over are often in the 50% to 90% of the initial development costs.
However, I do not believe that the overall situation with gaming on the Mac has changed. Yes, ports are expensive and the Mac has low RoI. That’s always been true. However the pattern of game releases on Mac has always been to offer a port (farmed out to a different company like Feral or Aspyr) a year or more after the initial game launch. I do not see this dynamic changing in the future because of the switch to Apple Silicon.
Personally I find that a “cheap” excuse from Blizzard if that is the case. When you put in the work to make a remaster make it 64 bit too.I read it's because it's 32-bit and too much work to make it 64-bit. Never played any Diablo game so not a big loss for me but surprising that Feral can remaster many old games for Mac and not Blizzard. Go Feral!
I've been thinking maybe that next-gen Apple TV we keep hearing about (not the refresh we got recently) is going to be an Apple TV Pro model powered by some next generation M1X or M2X chip. It'll get introduced alongside refreshed Macs with those same chips as part of a push by Apple into high end gaming.
We've also heard dodgy rumors about Apple exploring a "gaming edition" MacBook Pro, I highly doubt they'd release such a thing but I think it's another indication that Apple will push into the "high end/pro gaming" market. Apple wouldn't focus on "gaming" as a marketing pillar of the next gen M series hardware unless they can demonstrate they can go toe to toe with what laptop/desktop gaming means to the public right now: PC AAA games from Rockstar, Bethesda, etc. rather than the popular arcadey stuff we see on Apple devices.
Apple TV = for watching movies, TV shows, YouTube, etc. - $179
Apple TV Pro = for AAA games, comes with a controller - $399 - $499
If they released an Apple TV Pro that can play AAA games along with major parternships with game studios (and perhaps more importantly with game engine builders like Unreal) for day one support of upcoming hyped titles (imagine GTA 6 launching on an Apple device lol) IMO there wouldn't be a better game console proposition on the market given the Apple TV's other app abilities and general polish (unless you're interested in a specific exclusive game like Flight Simulator or Bethesda titles).
We've also heard dodgy rumors about Apple exploring a "gaming edition" MacBook Pro, I highly doubt they'd release such a thing but I think it's another indication that Apple will push into the "high end/pro gaming" market. Apple wouldn't focus on "gaming" as a marketing pillar of the next gen M series hardware unless they can demonstrate they can go toe to toe with what laptop/desktop gaming means to the public right now: PC AAA games from Rockstar, Bethesda, etc. rather than the popular arcadey stuff we see on Apple devices.
Apple TV = for watching movies, TV shows, YouTube, etc. - $179
Apple TV Pro = for AAA games, comes with a controller - $399 - $499
If they released an Apple TV Pro that can play AAA games along with major parternships with game studios (and perhaps more importantly with game engine builders like Unreal) for day one support of upcoming hyped titles (imagine GTA 6 launching on an Apple device lol) IMO there wouldn't be a better game console proposition on the market given the Apple TV's other app abilities and general polish (unless you're interested in a specific exclusive game like Flight Simulator or Bethesda titles).
Come to think of it, if Apple laptops and desktop devices had greater than or equal to gaming capability as a PC does how much would that impact future Mac adoption?
I can think of a LOT of people that would buy a Mac over a PC if it could run their favorite games (almost everyone in that category under the age of 25), almost all of them use iPhones already. Apple must know this and must be figuring out a way to push that crowd further into the ecosystem.
I can think of a LOT of people that would buy a Mac over a PC if it could run their favorite games (almost everyone in that category under the age of 25), almost all of them use iPhones already. Apple must know this and must be figuring out a way to push that crowd further into the ecosystem.
The thought that Apple would price a gaming focused Apple TV near console pricing is amusing. I would fully expect it to be more expensive. Especially considering the specs they need to hit exists in the M1 Mac Mini (the 899 version).