I suspect you wouldn't get the same GPU performance without the extra CPU cores so you'd end up spending the same to get the 64 GPU M1.
Last edited:
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.
Apple CAN’T do AAA gaming [Merged Megathread]
- Thread starter Admiralbison
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple subsidizes video content for Apple TV. Apple could subsidize game content for Apple Arcade; the downstream effect is that someone might choose a higher spec M# because of good game support. Apple is wealthy enough to throw money at this problem like they did with Apple TV.
Last edited:
Okay let’s theorycraft this scenario:
1. Apple throws an absurd amount of money at a game studio for an exclusive game.
2. We assume the game is excellent and gets excellent reviews.
3. Mac users buy the game in droves.
Assuming all of this, do you think the revenue would exceed the money spent? I don’t.
Apple makes up about 12% of the pc market, and even then not all users play games (on the contrary, it’s likely a lower percentage than pc users).
This leaves out roughly 88% of a potential market, a market roughly half the size of mobile, and stricter with money.
And let’s not forget, that core demographic, is not gonna run out and buy a $700 minimum machine for one game. Especially when that demographic hates Apple.
Now, let’s say Apple decides to smash their head against the wall some more an release 5, 10, 20 different high quality games on Apple Arcade. I’m still not convinced that would lure in any switchers.
Even if games were supported the ghosting on current machines is absolutely terrible for gaming, you would still have to hook up an external display.
Apple subsidizes MacOS ports of games, they don't create exclusive games. They have a more expensive tier of Apple Arcade which covers these games. The companies earn less when Apple is paying for the porting, but earn more if they do the porting.
The rest of your post is based on an incorrect assumption.
Last edited:
That makes it worse ROI, because now the only beneficiaries are people who already own Macs. Might as well set that money on fire.
Still zero switchers gained, now with zero revenue made.
Also In what way is the rest of my post incorrect?
I could see Apple attracting more games, but it I can't see them ever unseating Windows PCs as the hardware of choice for dedicated PC gamers. I think if they really wanted gaming to be a strong use case for Macs, they'd do well to pay off (or buy outright) a big game developer to start putting out more AAA titles for Macs. And then they'd have to play a long game and stick with this strategy long enough for current gaming PCs to start getting outdated to give gamers a good offramp to switching platforms.
None of that would probably mean much to hard core PC gamers. Even setting aside for a moment the massive back library of PC games, the general culture involves a lot of custom builds. This is the exact opposite of the locked-down Mac hardware line. And even on an aesthetic level, minimal and refined Mac hardware design vocabulary has pretty much zero overlap with the look of flashy RGB gamer hardware.
Last edited:
I’ve heard this but haven’t noticed it on my mbp 14. I’m not certain how prevalent it is.
Its a better ROI. It costs less to port one popular game then it does create a game you hope will be popular. Therefore for the same amount of money Apple gets multiple games and multiple games are more enticing when it comes to getting someone to sign up for Apple Arcade +. It's not the sole reason to switch, but it reduces the gaming barrier to switching.
Revenue is gained from services and the downstream effect of buying an M1-Pro instead of an M1, an M1-Max instead of an M1-Pro, or a 16" screen instead of a 14" screen.
Once Apple is involved in the process, they can also port games to the iPads, gaining revenue there.
Last edited:
It's quite much tried World of Warcraft and turned it off, but then again I'm used to OLED Displays and 3-5ms displays at 165hz
No one who is serious about gaming is going to buy a Mac to game. Just not going to happen with closed of computers that are not upgradeable. PC's are a much better investment in this realm as you can upgrade any and every componenet. Apple computers might be good now, but how will they fair as games continue to get bigger and more complex, they won't fair well and if you want to continue gaming on a Mac you now need to buy a new computer. Compare that to a PC where most likely you will only have to upgrade your GPU. CPU will last a lot longer and RAM is dirt cheap and easy to add in more.
I seriously doubt it. Most gaming PCs top out at 8 cores, and many games these days don't scale very high. Plus, since Apple is using the unified memory idea, the CPU should be less taxed than in a traditional architecture. Those extra cores in the MAX (which what I have anyway LOL) aren't really needed for GPU loads. Where it does come in handy is in 3D rendering, as the app I use does not support the Apple GPU, defaulting to CPU. In that regards, the M1 Max is a much better fit for my needs
.There's a big middle ground between hardcore "super-serious about gaming" and casual "only game on your phone".
Well, I actually think M1 could be good for gaming. A standardised SOC on a large installed base of laptops and tablets and desktops could make it very easy to create portable code aimed at more devices, if you’re creating a game for iOS, iPadOS and Mac OS.
Let’s the time goes for Apple Silicon to prove itself. Majority of Mac users still own the base model due to thier premium price tag and they aren’t suitable for gaming. The market aren’t their yet. See how EA only port The Sims franchise to Mac? Beacause the market is there.
It's all about how many Mac users play games. The market share is too low so there is no reason to support games on Mac. At this point, Mac is totally out of game market.
I see, I’m not used to displays like that so I’m probably just missing it.
Naturally, I don’t disagree here.
I agree it reduces the barrier.
however, let’s theorize about the potential switcher.
A person who gaming is important to, and has a gaming pc already. To them, they already have access to their desired titles, guaranteed support for past releases and any release into the future.
Even if there’s 10 popular titles, is that enough to make that person go out and purchase a Mac (that performs at least as well as their existing PC) AND an Apple Arcade subscription? And if they do, they would potentially lose out on previous titles supported on Windows and not MacOS.
I have serious doubts that there’s enough people who are willing to switch for a handful of titles to make ROI for Apple.
This is predicated on the notion that these people will switch at all. A switch to a platform that may or may not have support for future titles based on who Apple wants to throw money at. And no guarantee of support for existing favorites.
Or simply cut out the middleman and port directly to iOS, where Apple has the lion’s share of profits from a market that’s at least double the size of the PC market.
You are fixated on only switchers and I'm talking about Mac users and potential Mac Users.
And they can keep p[laying their existing titles on their existing computer, but when buying a new computer it may be a Mac instead because the gaming barrier has been reduced.
Its 10 titles until its 20 titles until its 50 titles until its 100 titles. Apple has the wealth to brute force this problem and as Mac gaming becomes commonplace, porting for Mac will become part of the process instead of an edge case.
It's a handful in the beginning. When AppleTV launched there were only a handful of Apple-funded shows; there are many more now. When a current Mac user upgrades their computer, the ability to play games will make the M#-Max appealing enough to upgrade to over an M#-Pro so there are a lot of ROIs Apple can enjoy.
If they can port to iOS they can port to MacOS.
I think Apple really should try to encourage more ports to the Mac. I don’t game much, but I have a kid who loves to. Most of the games he wants to play aren’t available on Mac, so obviously he wants a PC one day - Macs are boring work computers in his eyes now.
I’m sure this kind of thing happens in every Mac family and it has to result in a cap on market share.
There are some great Mac games out there though. Tunic was recently released with a native Apple Silicon version on steam and it‘s brilliant - I bought it. It’s been covered by all the gaming review sites/channels (on pc/xbox) but I don’t see any mention of it here or other Mac leaning places.
I’m sure this kind of thing happens in every Mac family and it has to result in a cap on market share.
There are some great Mac games out there though. Tunic was recently released with a native Apple Silicon version on steam and it‘s brilliant - I bought it. It’s been covered by all the gaming review sites/channels (on pc/xbox) but I don’t see any mention of it here or other Mac leaning places.
It's just a tad annoying for me that I have to carry two laptops when travelling one for work and another for gaming but that's about it.
I don't have mind having a gaming laptop like a Legion 5 Pro and also having my Macbook Pro 14"
I don't have mind having a gaming laptop like a Legion 5 Pro and also having my Macbook Pro 14"
Not profitable due to the amount of Mac players and therefore, there wont be any Mac games ported from PC.