Isn't it completely up to developers. Like the only reason there is any games on the iPhone is because people want to make games for the iPhone. Not because Apple was like begging people to make games.
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
Woah keep your pants on Tim Sweeney, Microsoft charges developers 30% as well, and so does Sony and Google.
They shouldn't! The hard core gamers who spend big money on gaming are a strange breed of people.
They tend to have very strong opinions:
- They hate console gaming
- They traditionally hate all things Apple
- They want to tinker and tune their machines to optimise the latest little thing
- They like gaudy RGB lights
So NO, Apple should not attempt to cater to the gaming market. It would just be a waste of time and money and it is doomed to fail by the nature of those who they would be trying to win over.
Amusing to see how people are seeing the gamer market as a homogenous block on either extreme of the spectrum. Fun fact: Most people play games in one way or the other. Games are not JUST hardcore twitch FPS or JUST mobile casual games. There are loads of genres that cater to every type of PERSON, many of whom are existing Mac users.
Exactly. I don’t understand why discussion about games always tends to be limited to “AAA” (whatever that means, it seems that everyone just uses that term as they please). Most interesting games - at least for me - out there are more often available for macOS than not.
Ha! Sadly I am about $7.4bn short of his $7.4bn fortune.
MS and Sony of course also care about making a profit, but they also seem to care a great deal about gaming and invest a huge amount of time and energy to develop and promote it. Apple's interests in gaming seems to be purely financial.
Cyberpunk 2047 is an AAA game; Animal Crossing isn't.
You are correct that Macs should have a variety of games ported, not just AAA games. In many ways mid-level games are more important because not only would they they would run nicely on all Macs, but they would also appeal more to less hard-core gamers.
What is really confusing to me is that they would do this, especially with the fact that if you look at the market share, Apple is selling much more Macs, especially in the United States. I think with the case of Steam, Epic, and Microsoft's stores though I sadly think that the reason we aren't seeing strong support from those platforms are more business reasons than anything else.
Cyberpunk has cost close to half a billion to make, it that’s the metric then there are no other AAA games…
I’ve also seen people claim that BG3 is not an AAA title, despite the huge development team and budget, for reasons unclear to me…
And especially on that front Mac gaming is from from being as terrible as many claim.
Apple supports all games that are made by developers for the new Chip.
It's not up to Apple to make games.
The real question should be "How many developers find a use case for developing games on the new Chip"?
That is out of Apple's control.
Cyberpunk also made all it's money back on pre-orders alone....
Cyberpunk 2077 was profitable for CD Projekt before it even launched
Cyberpunk 2077 has made back its development costs through digital pre-orders alone
www.pcgamesn.com
I’m focused on switchers because that’s where Apple stands to make money on this notion. You said Apple should foot the bill, so game devs won’t have as big of investment, but that’s where the profits will go.
If there was significant interest in the EXISTING Mac market, then publishers would ALREADY cater to them.
Hence, getting people to switch is the only way to make the market relevant.
Only IF all the future titles they’re looking forward to are on the platform. Which would only be certain depending on Apple throwing money at them, vs a guarantee with PC.
It’s the cost of 10 titles, until it’s the cost of 20 titles, until it’s the cost of 50 titles, until it’s the cost of 100 titles.
And if the money dries up then it’s back to zero.
“Just throw money at it, lol”
Apple has their wealth because they don’t go on fool’s errands like this. Any business looks for RoI, and I for one hardly see catering to a niche market as having significant if any RoI. And I suspect very smart people at Apple feel the same way.
Again, this is only predicated on Apple throwing gobs of money around to cater to a crowd that’s smaller than you think.
A crowd that, if you’ll permit me to go on a tangent, has an anti-Apple culture. The diy ethos, something completely contrary to Apple’s M.O., is ingrained in the culture.
Go into any gaming focused community and mention that you’re an Apple user. You’ll be met with ridicule 100% of the time.
And for sake of argument, let’s completely ignore that attitude. Let’s talk about the value proposition to that market.
These folks care about moddability, cost, availability of games, and getting the most for their money.
I don’t think I have to tell you that Apple is flat out against moddability. As far as cost goes, we all Agree that Apple products cost a premium. And they’re willing to forgo quality in different areas in place of pure performance. Something Apple typically doesn’t do.
That just leaves game availability. Which in your scenario is reliant on Apple throwing money at devs. Money that I don’t in any realistic scenario, they’ll get back in sales or subscriptions.
Then why don’t they ****ing do it already?
I don’t think any company cares about gaming I think they just want a piece of the cake.
Animal Crossing also is a functional game that worked beautifully on release.
AAA just means “overhyped preorder bait” anymore.
The mid-level games aren’t the big holdup. Every time this conversation comes up it’s about AAA titles.
This is possibly the most screwy take I’ve seen.
Of course Microsoft promotes gaming, they have two of the biggest platforms on the ****ing planet. And an essential monopoly on desktop.
And Sony is a close second, notably a stranglehold on Japan. But they have their hands in many pieces of the pie.
The notion that they’re doing anything this out of their love for gaming is just silly. If they were in the same position as Apple they’d come to the same conclusion: it’s not worth the effort.
Nintendo seems to care about gaming (more than others, lol).
Every time it comes up it’s always the same notes.Why start another discussion when there are already several similar? I just got a déjà vu feeling seeing the same arguments as in the discussion below.
Apple CAN’T do AAA gaming and sorely needs to employ game guru leads.
*warning long intro rant, if you want to get to my point skip ahead to “the point” ———— Macs can do the ‘work’ but can’t do the ’play’ gaming on computers is a massive past time, so this can’t be ignored. As Mac fans we have to be honest with ourselves, the Mac platform falls embarrassingly...forums.macrumors.com
“I want games on the Mac”
Well how about X game?
“No I want Y game and it’s Apples fault it’s not on there!”
How is it Apple’s fault that devs don’t make games for them?
“Look, I want Y game on Mac and it’s Apple’s fault and they’re not making good business decisions by not catering to MY HOBBY!”
They make good games for sure, but let’s not confuse a commitment to quality control with true passion.
I do think that Nintendo has a certain game dev culture and passion, probably because they are the ones actually making the games for their platform. There is attention to detail and polish that you can only see in titles devs rally care about. And I am saying it as someone who never really got into Nintendo games, just not my cup of tea.
Even after refunds?! I hope so! I played on stadia and really enjoyed it.Cyberpunk also made all it's money back on pre-orders alone....
Cyberpunk 2077 was profitable for CD Projekt before it even launched
Cyberpunk 2077 has made back its development costs through digital pre-orders alone
Cyberpunk also made all it's money back on pre-orders alone....
Cyberpunk 2077 was profitable for CD Projekt before it even launched
Cyberpunk 2077 has made back its development costs through digital pre-orders alone
Of course it did. And yet Animal Crossing probably made more much money overall
Anyway, Cyberpunk is a great example how all you need to succeed is advertising. It's a bad game and a terrible product. But it mashes together popular things (even if that doesn't make any sense), and it was very hyped, so of course they made money. Gaming market is a huge paradox because it's extremely difficult to get into but also extremely starved at the same time. Gamers will buy and gladly eat any poop in a fancy wrapping as long as it ticks their boxes.