Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

arvinsim

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2018
823
1,143
and if I may throw my two cents in here, modern AAA games suck donkey dick anyway. You pay $60 for a released-in-beta “game” with half the content chpped off and sold as dlc or micro transactions, on the hopes that ot will get updates that make it good.
With that kind of mentality, no wonder AAA studios don't cater to Apple Mac users.

Smaller titles are more likely to support the Mac, and they’re usually better anyway. Or there’s always older titles that will run on anything, or even emulating old console games. It’s beyond stupid to complain about not getting the latest scam **** out by EA or 2K when smaller titles are better quality and emulation is available.
Funnily enough, a lot of smaller titles in Steam that I loved and played on my Mac got wiped by Apple's transition to 64 bit only.

I would also say that smaller titles got even less incentives and resources to be able to support more platforms.
 

arvinsim

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2018
823
1,143
Also, I think the majority of games are a waste of money; play it once, get bored and realize you blew another $60.
$60 is a fair deal for hours worth of fun. I mean some people blow a lot more than that in an evening dinner.

Or do you expect $60 to give you something fun indefinitely?
 

Shirasaki

macrumors P6
May 16, 2015
16,263
11,764
That's called "moving goalposts".

It's hilarious how people here try to lower the bar on gaming playability just so that Apple's M1 chip could clear it.
Heh. “Moving goalposts”
I’m simply stating there are different genres and different types of game, and they don’t hard require 120FPS to be playable. Did I mention FPS requiring 120FPS?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubular

ateslik

macrumors 6502
Oct 18, 2008
411
551
If you want to game, the Razer Blade 14 is a better choice. It is cheaper than the M1 MacBook Pro, yet it is faster (in multi-core performance) and it has a RTX 3060. Yet it is just as small as the 13” M1 MacBook Pro too.

It really shows what a MacBook Pro with AMD could have been.

And it also support CUDA.

This shows what a MacBook Pro with AMD actually is, and it's crap:


almost 5000 posts.

16" MBP with M2 is going to smoke the Razer Blade 14. It won't even be close by every metric. I have the 13" M1 and it makes the 16" 5600M - my previous MBP - feel turtle slow and ridiculous.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
I consider myself to be a reasonably competent GPU programmer. I have 20+ years of experience working with OpenGL, I know Metal quite well, and I try to keep up to date with DX12 and Vulkan. Metal is by far the best GPU API I know. Yes, Windows is mainstream for games, and most devs will target DX12. It does not invalidate my argument however. If one wants, one can develop cutting edge AAA games using Metal — it offers all the tools one needs, and in some cases (especially if you target Apple GPUs), it makes your job easier.

How do you like Metal relative to DX12? They target similar goals, specifically low driver overhead compared to older frameworks. I mean, is there anything specific that puts Apple ahead here?
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
20,395
23,898
Singapore
I think that because of the iphone, the Mac will never be a priority for Apple when it comes to gaming. The best example of this is Apple Arcade. While this helps guarantee a steady stream of games for all apple devices, the majority of them are optimised for smartphones, and only a few will make sense on a PC form factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falhófnir

UBS28

macrumors 68030
Oct 2, 2012
2,893
2,340
This shows what a MacBook Pro with AMD actually is, and it's crap:


almost 5000 posts.

16" MBP with M2 is going to smoke the Razer Blade 14. It won't even be close by every metric. I have the 13" M1 and it makes the 16" 5600M - my previous MBP - feel turtle slow and ridiculous.

The Razer 14 also “smokes” your 16” MBP.

And Razer shows how great AMD is since they are more powerful than the M1 in multiscore while having the thermals to use a RTX 3070 and even a RTX 3080 in a very small package.

And the M2X 16” MBP will not smoke the Razer 14” MBP for gaming like the OP wants to do. For gaming, the OP needs Windows and I doubt that the integrated GPU of the M2X 16” MBP can beat a RTX 3070 or RTX 3080.
 
Last edited:

Shirasaki

macrumors P6
May 16, 2015
16,263
11,764
The Razer 14 also “smokes” your 16” MBP.

And Razer shows how great AMD is since they are more powerful than the M1 in multiscore while having the thermals to use a RTX 3070 and even a RTX 3080.

And the M2X 16” MBP will not smoke the Razer 14” MBP for gaming like the OP wants to do. For gaming, the OP needs Windows and I doubt that the integrated GPU of the M2X 16” MBP can beat a RTX 3070 or RTX 3080.
While raw performance maybe no match, comparing per watt performance could be a different story. M2X might not be as powerful as RTX 3080, but if gamers can play their AAA on battery for 7 hours vs PC’s 1-2 hours, that’s still impressive.
 

jeanlain

macrumors 68020
Mar 14, 2009
2,463
958
They absolutely need to work together.
For games? No they don't. Apple GPUs will be good enough. Developers won't care if a GPU is from AMD, nVidia or whatever, as long as it can run their code well. In fact, a single vendor that makes decent GPU with predictable performance and stable drivers is what they need. For that, they'd rather have Apple GPUs rather than competing implementations with private extensions and behaving differently on the same code.
 

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
I think that because of the iphone, the Mac will never be a priority for Apple when it comes to gaming. The best example of this is Apple Arcade. While this helps guarantee a steady stream of games for all apple devices, the majority of them are optimised for smartphones, and only a few will make sense on a PC form factor.

The two things are nearly orthogonal. You don't end up with a worse iOS by inviting game developers to MacOS. They use an identical or nearly identical ISA, and the cost of maintaining frameworks like Metal is probably better amortized if spread across both. It's more likely that up until now, they didn't foresee enough of a payoff to pursue it, given that most models shipped with very weak gpus. Now I'm less certain of that.
 

Shirasaki

macrumors P6
May 16, 2015
16,263
11,764
For games? No they don't. Apple GPUs will be good enough. Developers won't care if a GPU is from AMD, nVidia or whatever, as long as it can run their code well. In fact, a single vendor that makes decent GPU with predictable performance and stable drivers is what they need. For that, they'd rather have Apple GPUs rather than competing implementations with private extensions and behaving differently on the same code.
And apple breaks API compatibility rendering older games inoperable. DirectX games, despite its shortcomings, as long as user has proper runtime installed on the PC, one can play old DX9 games like CNC3 without too much trouble. I seriously doubt apple will keep older version of their own API in the system at all (leave it alone) let alone some support. Yes, technology will advance and some old stuff must be retired, but given how aggressive Apple is in that regard, one has to concern when Apple will break legacy support and break games in the process. I don’t know if apple has that much power that they can break software compatibility whenever they wish without appraisal. I can’t imagine what would happen if every two years iOS release breaks compatibility of all apps.
 

Kierkegaarden

Cancelled
Dec 13, 2018
2,424
4,137
I am not a gamer, because it would be like crack to my brain. Regardless, reading these posts would tell anyone that there is a lot of passion behind these apps. I can’t imagine that Apple is lost on this.

The market is big, and they are clearly not commanding a significant slice. Maybe they’re planning something big long term? Maybe Apple Arcade is just them testing the waters? Maybe they’re focused on VR/AR for gaming in the future?

Or maybe, just maybe, Apple will re-release their Pippen console!
 

ian87w

macrumors G3
Feb 22, 2020
8,704
12,638
Indonesia
I remember when Jobs and John Carmack demoed Doom 3 on OS X back in Macworld. Back then, everybody still played nice with each other (Nvidia, Apple, game developers). Imo Apple themselves are not against games.

But then things happened. Here's my take.

Nvidia, we know the story. Bad blood with Apple. There's Ati (now AMD), but I believe Nvidia was leading, and things like Cuda complicated things.

Game developers: there are consolidations of various game developers being swallowed by the big game publishers. Games were used to be developed by smaller team of developers despite their AAA nature. But the push for cost and marketing allowed the big game publishers to swallow up these devs. We have the EA and Activision. When you are part of the big company, their vision changed. It's no longer about making great games, but it's about money, and the smaller Mac marketshare was simply not attractive anymore vs PC/console. Then there's Sony and Microsoft, who have special interest on their own for their own platforms. Macs ended up being left behind.

And there's Apple. Apple always had discrete GPU prior to intel transition. I want to guess that intel had promised better integrated GPU that Apple was willing to commit to intel, even putting intel integrated only on 13" retina Macbook Pros. But reality was otherwise, and intel just didn't improve their GPU (until Apple decided to go Apple Silicon). Cannot help it either as Apple already went ahead into the performance per watt and thinner designs. Majority of intel macs ended up not suitable for gaming at all.

The silver lining is Apple Silicon. Apple has been pushing the GPU on Apple Silicon, and what they can achieve on iPhones/iPads are astonishing. People keep comparing them to desktop GPUs, but remember that Apple Silicon GPUs are tailored for power efficiency and minimal cooling. How much is the power draw of those desktop GPUs? Gaming on iPads can produce graphics rivaling consoles, but on a battery power. That's amazing imo. Apple also starts a new concept for gaming, aka Apple Arcade. They are attracting different kinds of developers. It's still in its infancy, but we will see where it's going.

With Apple Arcade on the Mac, I don't see anything about Apple against gaming. It's just that Apple is not catering to the hardcore gamer segment. Apple is catering to the general public. :)
 

star-affinity

macrumors 68000
Nov 14, 2007
1,996
1,333
That proves that there are more gamers on PC than Mac. Stop ignoring the fact.


That's your opinion after all which is delusional. That's why Apple isn't interesting in Mac gaming.

I think @leman is onto something, and you are a bit too pessimistic. :)

While I can agree about the past, Apple sure seems to be aiming at the future with Metal and their new Apple Silicon Macs and there sure seems to be some focus from Apple's side to get more games on the Mac:

Optimize high-end games for Apple GPUs:

Quite a lot of capabilities in Metal, raytracing etc.


We also have this since last year:


Apple just needs to get powerful graphic hardware into the hands of more Mac users. And then I think the so called "AAA" game developers will follow. We'll see how that goes... ?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sunny5

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,522
19,679
How do you like Metal relative to DX12? They target similar goals, specifically low driver overhead compared to older frameworks. I mean, is there anything specific that puts Apple ahead here?

The conceptual design of all modern APIs (DX12, Vulkan and Metal) is fairly similar, and all of them achieve the basic goal of removing the overhead from the driver and giving the developer more control. The rest is mostly cosmetics (how is the API set up, how convenient it is to use etc.)

Metal is an interesting case because it does not need to support a wide range of hardware. So Apple has much more freedom in designing their API, where both DX12 and Vulkan have to make sure that the basic features work everywhere. This is particularly noticeable in the resource binding system and GPU-driven rendering, where Metal is much more flexible (resource descriptors can be organized into complex hierarchies with arbitrary indirection, and they can be manipulated from the shaders). Neither DX12 nor Vulkan has anything like that because not all hardware supports it (it was never spelled out loud, but from reading various meeting notes, I have the feeling that this kind fo functionality was boycotted by Nvidia, probably because their GPUs are not flexible enough).

Among some key advantages of Metal I would list:
  • Metal is by far — by far - the more user-friendly API
  • Better API design, more straightforward, easy to learn and use
  • Better shading language (C++ instead of C based, better support for structured programming)
  • More flexible resource binding
  • Better GPU-driven rendering support
  • Low-level GPU cache control (only on Apple GPUs)
Some things that Metal does differently:
  • Some industry-standard features like geometry shaders and tessellation have been reworked, making porting more difficult. One can argue that Apple's design of these features makes more sense, but still...
  • Metal generally attempts to abstract away certain hardware details which can result in more overheard on some hardware
  • Metal is clearly geared towards Apple GPUs with Intel and AMD devices being an afterthought. Only Apple GPUs support all the advanced features
Some things where Vulkan/DX have an advantage:

  • They (especially Vulkan) generally allow a lower level control of the hardware (but this distinction disappears when using Metal with Apple GPUs)
  • They are still industry standard — any new initiatives from GPU developers will enter those APIs first, widening the gap to Metal. For example, Mesh Shaders that Nvidia has been pushing recently are becoming more and more popular, but it is doubtful whether we will ever see them in Metal as the basic idea of Mesh Shaders doe snot fit well with Apple GPUs.

The Razer 14 also “smokes” your 16” MBP.

And Razer shows how great AMD is since they are more powerful than the M1 in multiscore while having the thermals to use a RTX 3070 and even a RTX 3080 in a very small package.

What Razer 14" show is what you can do with a laptop by prioritizing gaming performance at the expense of everything else. It is a great gaming laptop, but it doesn't get there by magic. Here are some facts:

Volume-wise, Razer 14" is just 20% smaller than the 16" MBP and over 20% larger than the 13" MBP. It uses a relative small 60W battery (same size as the 13" MBP) and adopts a lower-quality display in order to reach acceptable battery runtimes (which are not bad at all by the gaming laptop standard, but below average for productivity laptops). It has large air vents all over the laptop, resulting in very hot chassis temperatures. It sacrifices connectivity (no Thunderbolt). It also uses thin sheets of Metal for the chassis to minimize that size and weight and reviews note that it feels a bit flimsy and warps easily.

To sum it up, if you are willing to make all these tradeoffs, yes, you can pack 150W worth of a hardware in a comparably small laptop. I am not sure what kind of lesson Apple is supposed to learn from this though, as they are not interested in making those tradeoffs. They build general-purpose laptops, with balanced features. Razer 14" is anything but balanced.


And apple breaks API compatibility rendering older games inoperable. DirectX games, despite its shortcomings, as long as user has proper runtime installed on the PC, one can play old DX9 games like CNC3 without too much trouble. I seriously doubt apple will keep older version of their own API in the system at all (leave it alone) let alone some support. Yes, technology will advance and some old stuff must be retired, but given how aggressive Apple is in that regard, one has to concern when Apple will break legacy support and break games in the process. I don’t know if apple has that much power that they can break software compatibility whenever they wish without appraisal. I can’t imagine what would happen if every two years iOS release breaks compatibility of all apps.

I am confused. When did Apple break API compatibility? Even though they have deprecated OpenGL, it is still available and will remain to be available. In fact, since OpenGL has been reimplemented on top of Metal on M1 Macs, it actually runs better than on Intel Macs ;)
 

Shirasaki

macrumors P6
May 16, 2015
16,263
11,764
I am confused. When did Apple break API compatibility? Even though they have deprecated OpenGL, it is still available and will remain to be available. In fact, since OpenGL has been reimplemented on top of Metal on M1 Macs, it actually
Forced to cut quotes cause Safari in iOS 15 beta 2 sucks.
I’m still reeling from losing a lot of games in 32-bit cutoff. They were amazing and I spent a lot of time doing it.
No one knows if Apple will leave Rosetta alone in the future macos release (not asking for support, just LEAVE THEM ALONE) until all Intel Macs reach vintage or even obsolete stage.
So… I’m not very confident they will honour software compatibility that much compared to Microsoft for example.
 

NotTooLate

macrumors 6502
Jun 9, 2020
444
891
I see things differently. Apple's market share in the price range AAA developers are interested in is high. The cost of developing multiplatform games is not that high, because most games use an existing engine. And while PCs and consoles have converged recently, they used to be quite different.

Apple's hardware design priorities are a bigger issue, because they are not compatible with the demands of gaming:
  • Apple uses high-quality high-resolution displays, while gamers would prefer high refresh rates and low response times.
  • Gamers spend a lot of money on the GPU, while Apple has always used relatively weak GPUs compared to the rest of the hardware.
  • Games are often big, but Macs come with small SSDs unless you choose an expensive BTO upgrade.
A good baseline gaming Mac would have 32 GPU cores, 16 GB RAM, and 1 TB SSD, which is comparable to current-generation consoles. If Apple chooses to sell a laptop with such specs for $1500 and a desktop for a bit less, the platform could be quite attractive for gaming. If you have to pay $2500 for such specs (as seems likely based on current MBP prices), the platform is much less attractive, because most Macs will not be good enough for current-generation games.
So is it PS5 level or not ? if it is then how wouldn't it be good enough for current gen games? all games ,and I mean all games will be optimized to work on the performance of a PS5/XBOXX.

As other said , the issue wont be the HW , it will be the SW and how much work it takes to make the game run on Metal API`s vs how much money they can generate , basic.
 

JMacHack

Suspended
Mar 16, 2017
1,965
2,424
With that kind of mentality, no wonder AAA studios don't cater to Apple Mac users.
Two things:

1. don’t project my attitude towards gaming onto everyone here.
2. They wouldn’t cater to Mac users anyway.


Funnily enough, a lot of smaller titles in Steam that I loved and played on my Mac got wiped by Apple's transition to 64 bit only.

I would also say that smaller titles got even less incentives and resources to be able to support more platforms.
I’m mostly speaking about new releases. Old things sometimes get lost in the sea of progress unfortunately.

Smaller titles, in my experience, often are available on more platforms than big budget games. I’m just speaking from observation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubular

JMacHack

Suspended
Mar 16, 2017
1,965
2,424
I’m grateful I can’t play games on my Mac. I’d rather go without than bother maintaining 2 computers, since both are overpriced anyway.

Also, I think the majority of games are a waste of money; play it once, get bored and realize you blew another $60.
$60 if you don’t buy any dlc or get hooked on lootbox gambling. An unfortunate amount of people spend far more than that.



Just two examples.

I find it funny that the PCMR crowd jabs at Mac users for buying “overpriced” computers but also spends ludicrous amounts of money building a PC, then even more on games+dlc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ethosik

javanate

macrumors regular
May 13, 2005
158
563
When Apple came out with EGPU support, I saw a dim light at the end of the tunnel. I could dual boot my Mac and run a decent graphics card, even if there was a slight loss in frames from thunderbolt.

Now with Apple Silicon, the support for EGPUs have been dropped, and you no longer can dual boot and run Windows natively. So now if you want to game, you have to have a separately maintain another system or settle for Apple Arcade (yawn). Right now, I maintain a PC for gaming. I pull out a separate keyboard, mouse, audio interface each time I want to casually play. Each time I use a Microsoft product, I want to hang myself and makes me appreciate the Apple ecosystem more.

Gaming isn't just for nerds anymore. It's a common form of entertainment. The phrase "Macs don't game" really needs to die. Hopefully Apple Silicon can produce some killer GPUs to persuade gaming studios to develop their games on this platform.

This is my dream.
I think it's coming, or at least Apple is trying to make it happen. I'm thinking this is actually the long term strategy of Apple Arcade. Arcade isn't all that great, however they are getting bunches of studios to make games for iOS, and MacOS is gradually becoming a spin off iOS, and now using the same hardware. So years from now, it will nothing for these studios and others to make games for MacOS.
 

EntropyQ3

macrumors 6502a
Mar 20, 2009
718
824
2. The “gaming” community is actively hostile to Apple and Mac in general. Look at any gaming section of the internet and read the threads involving Macs. Even if Apple catered to them it would do nothing.
You’ve stated this a few times now, I picked one example.
I think it’s an oversimplification.
The most vehemently anti-Apple are the PC-tech enthusiasts (who often also game a bit).*
"Gamers", if we define them as people who have a strong interest in gaming and primarily buy hardware to support it, have little reason to care about Macs in that context. They may use Macs for other stuff.
"Gamers", if defined as people who play sometimes play games on their devices, well that’s most people, including Mac users. It’s just that they often do most of their gaming on Nintendo Switches, Windows PCs, Playstations and of course, their phones.

Which is why these threads crop up all the time. Many people using Macs play games too, and would simply like a wider selection of titles on their Macs.

* PC-tech enthusiasts have a strong anti-Apple tradition. Which, given that bang-for-the-buck and tinkering were the main drivers historically for this group, is understandable. It’s worth noting that the AS Macs have gotten a lot of attention and credit there as well. If nothing else, they represent something new, which is valued by people who look at computer tech as entertainment. Also, the tinkering aspect of PC enthusiasts have gradually receded as the manufacturers themselves strive to wring every last drop of performance from the hardware they sell. It’s difficult/impossible to do a better job through tweaking, typically you can just try to give the hardware the best possible cooling and the rewards are very modest. It has moved from "PC tinkering" to "PC shopping". And since prices are rising and advances are slowing, the interest is gradually turning into a spectator sport, just as like few people who read reviews of exclusive sports cars actually buy them.*

When it comes to gaming on the Mac, not only isn’t it as black and white as it’s typically made out to be in forum discussions, but the picture is constantly in slow change.

The consumer AS macs apparently sell quite well, to private customers, and BootCamp is a thing of the past so no more booting into Windows for a quick gaming fix. There is a growing amount of gaming money lying around on that table. As javanate points out, iOS developers are in a good position to expand into MacOS, which has the added benefit of having experience targeting AS graphics architecture.
We’ll see what the future brings, but I doubt it’s all bad.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
9,240
3,499
Pennsylvania
Gaming isn't just for nerds anymore. It's a common form of entertainment. The phrase "Macs don't game" really needs to die. Hopefully Apple Silicon can produce some killer GPUs to persuade gaming studios to develop their games on this platform.

It has nothing to do with eGPUs, sadly. The problem is that gaming is GPU intensive, and often times games will make API calls frequently, that the GPU manufacturer didn't test (because they can't test 100% of all possible API combinations). Sometimes, these frequent combination of API calls, cause bugs. The game developer will work with the GPU manufacturer and the implementer of the rendering pipeline to fix these bugs via software and driver updates.

In the Windows world, this means a company like Blizzard working with AMD or nVidia and Microsoft to fix specific bugs. These bug fixes, delivered via driver updates or Windows updates, are then pushed out to the end user.

Apple has traditionally been not just indifferent, but downright hostile to GPU manufacturers who want to update drivers outside of Apple's point releases. Apple held off on updating OpenGL for years. Now that they introduced Metal, Apple is the only company that can fix some of these bugs. Bugs that Apple doesn't care about, because they're arrogant enough to think that game engines will work around any bugs.

In response, game companies don't cater to the mac, because Apple refuses to support any facet of the driver update pipeline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacsRgr8 and thekev

diamond.g

macrumors G4
Mar 20, 2007
11,437
2,665
OBX
$60 if you don’t buy any dlc or get hooked on lootbox gambling. An unfortunate amount of people spend far more than that.



Just two examples.

I find it funny that the PCMR crowd jabs at Mac users for buying “overpriced” computers but also spends ludicrous amounts of money building a PC, then even more on games+dlc.
It used to not be that expensive because you could keep some stuff while changing others. Now it is harder to do it on the cheap (as in every GPU is like over 500 dollars). It will (may?) get better towards the end of the year.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.