You named a bunch of games from 2000-2005 - these aren't exactly profit-makers for anyone releasing games today
You named a bunch of games from 2000-2005 - these aren't exactly profit-makers for anyone releasing games today
It is sort of annoying, as the Apple Silicon Macs do have improved gaming potential overall on the hardware side... it's possible several game dev studios and publishers may change over time depending on the success of Apple's own efforts. I am kind of surprised to see them retain Linux support but dropping Mac, but they have the player OS breakdown numbers, and it's a big lift to support 1-2% they claimed.
Kind of a tough circular problem at this point to break out of.
Okay, well Proton, being based on WINE, makes it easy to support x86 Linux. So that’s basically free support. Now if they also support ARM Linux, that’s another story.
Look, you’re defending encouraging kids to gamble on in-game cosmetics. You may not realize it, but there’s this whole industry of illicit gambling that Valve still profits off of and could shut down once and for all, but they don’t because it would cut into their own profits. That’s far more abusive than any of Apple’s platform lock-in because exposure to gambling at a young age is truly potentially life destroying. Gambling is addictive, and enticing children to gamble is very much akin to introducing them to hard drugs. You should watch some documentaries on the subject, might I suggest some of Coffezilla’s videos on YouTube?
Portal and Portal 2 were good, Proton is a huge deal, and the Steam Deck is a very competitive product due to its low price point.
Portal 2 is 12 years old now! Geez, that makes me feel old more than anything! And Portal itself is 16 years old. Portal is nearly as old as the NES was when AVGN got its start.
Right, they probably reckon they could sell Steam hardware to Mac users wanting to play Source 2 games, so they’re disincentivized to support the Mac.
That's the third or even fourth time I have seen Apple "leaning into gaming" in my lifetime. You have to excuse me that I will expect nothing lasting from this.
Paying for ports is kind of what they have to do to show gamers there are games and developers there are folks that want to buy the games in enough numbers for it to make sense. Ideally if they are going to pay they should be getting [timed] exclusivity (which is what MS/Sony do for their platforms). Alternatively they could pull a MS and buy Electronic Arts or Ubisoft, or Take 2, and own some IP that would cause folks to come to their platform to play (like how folks bought an xbox to play Starfield).
You’re probably on the nose about exclusivity. Ultimately, Apple needs to pull a Nintendo and have titles no one else has if they want Macs to progress in gaming. But there’s probably not enough value in it for Apple. Compare that to Apple TV+, which is niche but it competes in a more mainstream market than PC gaming. Apple TV+ has had some successes (and is probably more successful in original content than Peacock, Paramount+, or HBO Max are), but it doesn’t have the mainstream reach Disney+ or Netflix has. Considering that Apple will never have the dominant position in computer gaming, it’s hard to see them justifying the investment in exclusive AAA titles (especially when PC gamers would just give the title a pass instead of buying a Mac mini to play it on).
No amount of coal is going to get the train going. I've been an Apple guy for over 40 years and Apple has never understood the gaming market. Serious gamers have long derided Apple's platforms for good reason. Compared to a PC, the hardware is more expensive, underpowered and nothing is upgradable. Consoles are much cheaper and offer significantly better graphics performance.
Same here! Many of us Apple fans have long hoped that Apple would buy Nintendo and make all of the Nintendo games and characters Apple-exclusive. That would give them some serious gaming IP and a big chunk of the gaming market. But I think that ship has sailed. Nintendo has also watered down its brand by making its games/characters available on other platforms.
Peak active players in CSGO/CS2 was about 1.8 million. 1% of that is 18,000 players.
Because SteamOS is Linux.
If Apple platforms account for less than 1% of their players, why would they support Apple? Nothing scummy about that. Just a very rational and sensible business decision.
“Linux as a more viable gaming platform”, probably not. “Linux as a platform that allows us to sell lower margin hardware sans the Windows licensing fees and keeps people in the Valve ecosystem”, probably yes. The reason they’re supporting Linux is because of the Steam hardware, and the reason they sell it is because it makes them money (and it would make them less money if they had to shell out for Windows OEM licenses).
For one: Warframe is a completely different game with a completely different target audience.
What's the difference? In the end more people are buying that "lower margin hardware" and using it for gaming than Apple hardware...which means Linux is a more viable gaming platform.
That it all likely true...and it means that Linux is more viable for gaming than the Mac. It's not about which hardware is better or if Apple platforms are good enough for gaming. They clearly are. The issue is, most people still don't see Apple as a viable gaming platform, and I don't think this perception is ever going to change.
