OS Neutral Why don't PC games come to Mac, and why when they do it takes forever?

[rampancy]

No. That is ridiculous and not even close to my point. My point is, a brand new £1000+ Mac should (in my mind at least) be able to run the apps that were used on a PPC 1.25 GHz G4 Mac with Mac OS 9.2.

But that backwards compatibility doesn't come for free, which was the point of my earlier post. Does a company like Apple spend its money fixing or maintaining backwards compatibility, or should it direct its resources towards pushing forward? And is the effort even worth it if only a vanishing percentage of people even take advantage of such functionality?

Even if Apple were to take the "easy way" out and provide say, a VM with 9.2, it would still take a significant amount of time, money and resources to properly maintain it, not to mention update it to be properly compatible with today's technology.

Because with a much cheaper PC on Windows 8.x, you can run Windows 9x Apps with no issues.

Really? Come to the GOG forums and see how even with the efforts made by the GOG/CDPR team, there are still many (not a huge amount, but still a significant amount) of games plagued with bugs and game breaking issues due to their incompatibility with modern versions of Windows and modern hardware.

Hitman 1/2, and other games are plagued with a speed bug that makes them run too fast on modern CPUs. Beyond Good and Evil still has an audio sync bug that has never been fully resolved, and both Interstate '76 and Interstate '82 are notorious for crashes and graphical bugs despite GOG's use of nGlide to ameliorate these problems. On Steam, people are still struggling to get Jedi Knight working, and it's notorious for being totally broken on today's systems.

 

[saturnotaku]

On Steam, people are still struggling to get Jedi Knight working, and it's notorious for being totally broken on today's systems.

It's pretty ironic when you consider that the OS X port of Jedi Knight, at least the Mac App Store version, works perfectly in Yosemite.

 

[Mattww]

I tend to keep my old games installed so I remember loosing a few when Classic Mode disappeared and then some broke with early OS X releases and the changes under the hood. The next batch was with the loss of Rosetta but most of these titles I have back via WINE wrappers & Crossover and GOG or cheap PC games on disk. In fact if anything the Intel switch left me with even more choice as all the old games that never got ported were often now playable in OS X thanks to WINE. Then steam arrived and Feral started rolling new titles out faster than I could play them....##

 

[Lennholm]

Because Apple has no interest in working with game developers or do anything to make their lives easier. Apple's attitude is that anyone should simply be glad and forever grateful to be allowed to develop for the Holy OSX Platform.

 

[Exhale]

I think that answer is obsolete now. When people show market numbers, it is everything. Is there is a lot of people playing Call of Duty in the office!? Home users with Macs is at least the same size as PC users.

Also another argument is that most PCs are super cheap PCs with integrated graphics.

Your argument unfortunately breaks appart easily:
1) Apple predominantly sells Laptops. These laptops generally do not have discrete GPUs. You cannot get a MBA with a DGPU, and you cannot get a 13'' RMBP with a DGPU. Only the upper-range MBPs and RMBPs have a DGPU as an option, but these are still (comparably) slow.

2) Steam's marketing numbers (which are extremely biased towards the gaming market, and home market) puts the number of 64-bit Windows 8.1 users to be over 7x higher than the sum of all OSX users.

While some will run Bootcamp, we can still partially catch these by also looking at the display resolution share. And here we don't actually have that big a share of the resolutions used by Macbooks (exception the 11'' air). The most common resolution is in fact 1920x1080, that used by desktop monitors.

 

[oxfordguy]

There's more many more Mac games available on Steam than there used to be, quite a few have Steam Play, though some of them have annoying differences from the Windows versions e.g. not being able to ALT-Tab between the game and the desktop (though some let you do this), e.g. the Mac versions Paradox's games (Europa Universalis 4, Crusader Kings 2) unfortunately don't let you ALT-Tab.

Because of this, even when Mac versions of games are often play the Windows versions (on my Mac, but booting into my Bootcamp Windows partition).

 

[edddeduck]

There's more many more Mac games available on Steam than there used to be, quite a few have Steam Play, though some of them have annoying differences from the Windows versions e.g. not being able to ALT-Tab between the game and the desktop (though some let you do this), e.g. the Mac versions Paradox's games (Europa Universalis 4, Crusader Kings 2) unfortunately don't let you ALT-Tab.

Because of this, even when Mac versions of games are often play the Windows versions (on my Mac, but booting into my Bootcamp Windows partition).

I am sure it's just a typo but you cmd + tab on the Mac. Alt + tab doesn't do anything on a Mac

 

[roadbloc]

Really? Come to the GOG forums and see how even with the efforts made by the GOG/CDPR team, there are still many (not a huge amount, but still a significant amount) of games plagued with bugs and game breaking issues due to their incompatibility with modern versions of Windows and modern hardware.

Hitman 1/2, and other games are plagued with a speed bug that makes them run too fast on modern CPUs. Beyond Good and Evil still has an audio sync bug that has never been fully resolved, and both Interstate '76 and Interstate '82 are notorious for crashes and graphical bugs despite GOG's use of nGlide to ameliorate these problems. On Steam, people are still struggling to get Jedi Knight working, and it's notorious for being totally broken on today's systems.

There's an odd few that don't work or require special tweaks to get working. But overall, I find Microsoft's backwards compatibility superb. They put a lot of effort into it when building an OS. Way more than Apple anyway who seem to be content with breaking apps with every release.

The most impressive things to read on Raymond’s weblog are the stories of the incredible efforts the Windows team has made over the years to support backwards compatibility: “Look at the scenario from the customer’s standpoint. You bought programs X, Y and Z. You then upgraded to Windows XP. Your computer now crashes randomly, and program Z doesn’t work at all. You’re going to tell your friends, ‘Don’t upgrade to Windows XP. It crashes randomly, and it’s not compatible with program Z.’ Are you going to debug your system to determine that program X is causing the crashes, and that program Z doesn’t work because it is using undocumented window messages? Of course not. You’re going to return the Windows XP box for a refund. (You bought programs X, Y, and Z some months ago. The 30-day return policy no longer applies to them. The only thing you can return is Windows XP.)”

 

[edddeduck]

There's an odd few that don't work or require special tweaks to get working. But overall, I find Microsoft's backwards compatibility superb. They put a lot of effort into it when building an OS. Way more than Apple anyway who seem to be content with breaking apps with every release.

I think we also covered that is why they have historically had security and other issues as they have to design new systems that work with the older ones and that means living with design decisions from 20+ years ago. It's a great idea but it does hamstring you being able to clean up and improve codebases.

Apple perhaps throw old stuff out to quickly at times and perhaps Microsoft keep some things for too long. It depends what is important to you really I guess. The two companies have different philosophies and are willing to sacrifice different things to meet their ideals.

Both have their advantages (and disadvantages).

 

[roadbloc]

Both have their advantages (and disadvantages).

Agreed. Such as an expansive video game collection. Or not in Apple's case.

 

[oxfordguy]

I am sure it's just a typo but you cmd + tab on the Mac. Alt + tab doesn't do anything on a Mac

Yes - but on many Mac games neither works as it should

 

[edddeduck]

Yes - but on many Mac games neither works as it should

Some ports are like that sure Usually when you have a company using some form of WINE or who don't know about the Mac OS as they don't develop on the Mac directly, these are usually found on Steam as Apple have stricter rules on the MAS about supporting Apple standards.

When a port is brought to the Mac by developers who use the Mac a lot then these features usually work. For example Blizzard, Asypr (and Feral who I work for) are a few companies that you know will support Mac features.

I know all the games I have worked on for Feral support cmd + tab and other Apple standards. That's 50 in the Mac AppStore + ~40(?) pre-AppStore. I would suggest you politely let them know via support about the lack of support, maybe they don't fix the issue for that game but they might for the next one.

Edwin

 

[oxfordguy]

Some ports are like that sure Usually when you have a company using some form of WINE or who don't know about the Mac OS as they don't develop on the Mac directly, these are usually found on Steam as Apple have stricter rules on the MAS about supporting Apple standards.

When a port is brought to the Mac by developers who use the Mac a lot then these features usually work. For example Blizzard, Asypr (and Feral who I work for) are a few companies that you know will support Mac features.

I know all the games I have worked on for Feral support cmd + tab and other Apple standards. That's 50 in the Mac AppStore + ~40(?) pre-AppStore. I would suggest you politely let them know via support about the lack of support, maybe they don't fix the issue for that game but they might for the next one.

Edwin

Paradox (developers of Europa Universalis 4 and Crusader Kings 2) should really know better. I have bug reported this, and they acknowledged it, but also said they don't see it as a priority to fix, which probably means it's not going to get fixed any time soon...

 

[rampancy]

It's pretty ironic when you consider that the OS X port of Jedi Knight, at least the Mac App Store version, works perfectly in Yosemite.

Ah, you're thinking of Jedi Knight II (Jedi Outcast), not the original Jedi Knight (Dark Forces II).

Agreed. Such as an expansive video game collection. Or not in Apple's case.

Snarkiness aside, if Apple had gone down the route of pursuing backward compatibility above all else just to satisfy the needs of a small minority (or a select market that was incredibly biased against it to begin with), then it wouldn't have survived any of its major transitions in OS or CPU technology. Which is why what you pretty much want is for Apple to continue to sell the same stuff in 2015, that it sold in 2001.

Your old legacy hardware isn't going away. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to use your old Mac for gaming.

 

[roadbloc]

Snarkiness aside, if Apple had gone down the route of pursuing backward compatibility above all else just to satisfy the needs of a small minority (or a select market that was incredibly biased against it to begin with), then it wouldn't have survived any of its major transitions in OS or CPU technology. Which is why what you pretty much want is for Apple to continue to sell the same stuff in 2015, that it sold in 2001.

No. That is nonsense. I don't want Apple to be selling 2001 products in 2015. As I said, one of the reasons why OS X has a lack of games overall in comparison to Windows, is that they quickly become incompatible with Apple's incredibly short software support lifecycle. Now they could work, since I see no reason why Rosetta or even Classic couldn't function in Yosemite today, other than it would probably require a bit of work and effort off Apple. But like it or not, it is a valid reason why gaming is much bigger on Windows.

Your old legacy hardware isn't going away. There's nothing stopping you from continuing to use your old Mac for gaming.

Like I want to game across like five pieces of hardware. I'd rather use Windows for my gaming needs. Old games more often than not work right out of the box because Microsoft care about compatibility, I have the ability to customise my hardware, take advantage of the power of DirectX and many more titles available than on OS X. Anybody who is serious about gaming who decides to suffer under OS X (and the lackluster hardware Macs have for gaming) and being forced to keep legacy hardware because Apple can't be arsed keeping up with compatibility needs their head checking.

I don't understand what is hard to understand. Compatibility is a huge factor for me when it comes to gaming. When I buy a game, I want it to work on my platform ten years from now. Only Microsoft on Windows appear to achieved this for me. And for me it is a huge reason why OS X has less games than Windows.

 

[Dirtyharry50]

I don't know why people go back and forth so much trying to justify and/or argue their choices in terms of what system they prefer to play games on. People should relax about this. It's fine. Do whatever pleases you. There's no need to justify it for anyone else, no need to argue about your choice versus somebody else's choice and no need to sell one point of view versus another.

For me, I am quite content with the quality and variety of options for gaming on my iMac between what is available on the Mac App Store and Steam in particular by Feral, Aspyr and Blizzard but also others. There are more games I want to play than I can find time for which is a nice problem to have. If I want to play other games not available for my iMac, I prefer console and with that added into the equation I don't feel I need to really miss much or anything of importance to me. But this is just my take. This works for me. I don't need it to work for anyone but me.

I think we ought to spend more time keeping it positive and sharing our love for gaming rather than being negative about choices we don't favor particularly when we know people are unique individuals and will have their own preferences. Why not simply let them?

The only rights and wrongs I see in discussions like these is when there is misinformation such as generalizations that are not really true or are really just opinions not based on facts.

As to the issue of obsolescence, I would agree that just generally speaking many older titles continue to be playable on current versions of Windows but this is hardly something you can depend on. It varies widely by title and how old it is. However, with the passage of time titles on any system are eventually going to become obsolete. It simply is not financially viable to continue to support them. This is just a fact of computer gaming life. In a perfect world it would be wonderful if every computer game we ever bought worked on every new computer we bought year after year forever. It isn't a perfect world though so there's a not a lot of point in wishing for that or expecting it.

 

[TheBunny]

http://www.joystiq.com/2015/01/30/octodad-dadliest-catch-reels-in-4-9-million-in-gross-revenue/

Yup Mac sales % looks about right...

 

[Dekema2]

With the news that Oculus Rift is "pausing" OS X development and no BO III for the Mac, it's safe to say there is limited developer interest in the platform.

Perhaps the Apple SuperTV at the WWDC will bring a reversal of fortunes to the platform however.

 

[Plutonius]

With the news that Oculus Rift is "pausing" OS X development and no BO III for the Mac, it's safe to say there is limited developer interest in the platform.

I would agree that there is limited current interest in Oculus Rift.

 

[erayser]

I would agree that there is limited current interest in Oculus Rift.

You guys even read the powering rift blog? My gaming rig was updated last year with current hardware, and my GPU's don't meet specs to run rift. It makes more sense to support PC gamers first. If I want to run rift, I can just upgrade my GPU's... and not my entire system. It doesn't make sense to buy a whole new entire system to get up to specs to run rift... which under spec Mac owners would have to do.

 

[Exhale]

With the news that Oculus Rift is "pausing" OS X development and no BO III for the Mac, it's safe to say there is limited developer interest in the platform.

The bigger reason (though not directly mentioned) for Rift dropping OS X support is that Apple currently has zero machines that meet the hardware requirements.

The current best iMac fails to requirements (GPU is too weak), and while the Mac Pro with 2xD700 would be sufficient - it fails because OS X does not support Crossfire. A D700 on its own is too weak, but its all OS X supports.

It therefore does not make sense to currently continue developing for OS X.

 

[Dekema2]

So I thought I would revive this thread on the basis that we had a good discussion going on, although I want to talk about the ATV. In your professional opinions, do you think we will see console games like Bungie titles (Destiny, Halo), EA series (NFL, NHL, FIFA, etc.), CoD, Valve, etc., and maybe even high-CPU simulators like X-Plane? Or is it...well...most of these should be good to go for the ATV in my opinion. What do you think?

And here is the tie-in, the 800-lb gorilla: if they were to come, and more and more people get the ATV, would they be (at some point) cross compatible with the Mac?

 

[Dirtyharry50]

So I thought I would revive this thread on the basis that we had a good discussion going on, although I want to talk about the ATV. In your professional opinions, do you think we will see console games like Bungie titles (Destiny, Halo), EA series (NFL, NHL, FIFA, etc.), CoD, Valve, etc., and maybe even high-CPU simulators like X-Plane? Or is it...well...most of these should be good to go for the ATV in my opinion. What do you think?

And here is the tie-in, the 800-lb gorilla: if they were to come, and more and more people get the ATV, would they be (at some point) cross compatible with the Mac?

Read up on the new Apple TV and the size limits it imposes, hardware it offers, etc. and you will see it is not designed to support AAA console title ports. That isn't going to happen this generation of the device, that is for certain. I think there was a good article about this taken realistically from a gaming perspective on Aspyr's GameAgent blog.

Basically, some cool and fun to play entertainment titles will be available and in time probably a lot of them but I would expect iOS type games not AAA console fare. For one thing, the initial allowed installation I read can only be a maximum of 200 megabytes and then another 2 plus gigabytes can be cached after that to the AppleTV locally and beyond that I think it was up to 20 gigs could be streamed in from the cloud. So that does open a lot of possibilities but it also closes off many others.

I don't think Apple is trying to make the AppleTV a console killer at all. The core gamer if you will is not the intended audience for this device. I think the aim is just to enhance the living room entertainment experience by offering a unique gaming option that does not go head-to-head with the likes of PS4, Xbox or Wii consoles which are far more powerful with much more storage capability for their primary intended purpose - gaming. The primary intended purpose of an Apple TV is still steaming video entertainment and the other stuff is a bonus in my opinion. I can't recall if anything was said about this but I am sure Internet of Things features are going to follow in future generations of this device if it does not incorporate any already.

I don't think Apple has any interest in competing in the same market where SONY, Microsoft and Nintendo are for games any more than they make any effort to provide Macs that could compete with PC gaming rigs. It's just not a focus for them even though they do offer some support for it.

I'd be very happy though if certain iOS games made it to AppleTV such as Baldur's Gate Enhanced, games of that quality as opposed to the simple puzzlers and time wasters so popular on iOS. Those are fine for those who like them. They just aren't really my cup of tea most of them. On the other hand though, some good stuff has made it to iOS and if those sorts of titles can be brought to the AppleTV I'd be happy about that. I think I read Transistor is going to be available for AppleTV so there is a cool game for example.

 

[JoeSixPack]

> Well I have to go to class in a few minutes, but I'm sitting here finally
> bugged, asking myself why do game studios like Activision and EA skip
> over the Mac, only to publish their titles 2 years later?

If it's any consolation, I've been playing games on Macs since they moved from from B&W to color, and there is good news and bad news.

The good news is that because we are only 10% of market share, all of those PC users are our beta testers who ensure that only the better games get ported over to Mac later. The bad news? As you get more settled in your career you will have barely enough spare time to play what Blizzard releases simultaneously, so you won't notice what you are missing.

 

[antonis]

> Well I have to go to class in a few minutes, but I'm sitting here finally
> bugged, asking myself why do game studios like Activision and EA skip
> over the Mac, only to publish their titles 2 years later?

If it's any consolation, I've been playing games on Macs since they moved from from B&W to color, and there is good news and bad news.

The good news is that because we are only 10% of market share, all of those PC users are our beta testers who ensure that only the better games get ported over to Mac later. The bad news? As you get more settled in your career you will have barely enough spare time to play what Blizzard releases simultaneously, so you won't notice what you are missing.

I'll have to disagree with the 'good news' part, though. Macs are not missing only the titles that are not worthy enough for the effort. Macs are also missing lots of AAA titles, constantly. In fact, the majority of them. Some of them all-time classics as well.