Apple CAN’T do AAA gaming [Merged Megathread]

[Irishman]

I think I agree with @Fred99 that Apple is not going to get directly involved in the gaming business. All these talks about Apple-branded console, about Apple hiring or paying game devs, I find it fairly unlikely (but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised if they do).

But there should be no doubt whatsoever that gaming — and high-end gaming in particular — is a first class citizen and a high priority use case for all of their platforms. Apple spend a lot of money and effort to develop gaming-grade GPUs and sophisticated APIs and tools for game development.

It is often claimed that Apple only care about compute, and the only strong points of their GPUs is stuff like video encoding, but I suspect that people who believe that never programmed a GPU or looked at modern Metal. Besides, if Apple didn't care about high-performance graphics, they would have sticked with OpenGL, it was doing basic stuff just fine.

So, Apple is already "directly involved in the gaming business", IF we count iOS.

Why wouldn't we count iOS? Especially since they're building on their own A-series ARM chips to work on MacOS via their own custom and scalable SoCs. Why does Apple have to show that they care about gaming on the Mac by flipping off gaming on iPhones and iPads?

Obviously, I very much disagree with the premise of the thread - that Apple doesn't get AAA gaming, or that they can only show that they do buying said developers of said games. Why must Apple make their own console to be taken seriously in the gaming space?? I've never heard that strategy offered before.

And, lastly, who has claimed that Apple only cares about compute performance?

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[diamond.g]

I think one can do some really interesting stuff with UMA, combining CPU and GPU work in a way that would not be practical on traditional dGPUs, but that's easier said than done. One of the most interesting features of the Apple GPU for me is the persistent GPU cache (aka tile shaders), which allows many algorithms to be expressed in simpler and more natural manner.

You would think that console developers would feel at home making games on iOS or macOS given similar constraints.

But, that can’t use the entire 32 GB just for textures, right? The 64GB Max could have 32 GB of textures and still have room for game/display logic and the OS.

As far as I know there is nothing that prevents the full framebuffer of the W6900X from being used for textures.

 

[diamond.g]

So, Apple is already "directly involved in the gaming business", IF we count iOS.

Isn't this a bit like saying Walmart is directly involved in the cell phone business since they sell cell phones?

I think Apple is indirectly involved in the gaming business (iOS or macOS) since they are neither a publisher nor developer of games for either platform.

 

[Irishman]

Its the same hardware, with the same basic capabilities. Unified programming model, great for devs. The only think that's different is performance.

Is your point that Apple Silicon scales very well? If so, I agree with you. If that’s not your point, then what did I miss?

 

[diamond.g]

Is your point that Apple Silicon scales very well? If so, I agree with you. If that’s not your point, then what did I miss?

It was an attempts to answer my question, and to stop a circular argument from forming (they made Apple Silicon for iPhone with the plans to use it in the Mac).

 

[Irishman]

Isn't this a bit like saying Walmart is directly involved in the cell phone business since they sell cell phones?

I think Apple is indirectly involved in the gaming business (iOS or macOS) since they are neither a publisher nor developer of games for either platform.

True or false- Apple’s Silicon on Chip is only getting faster, whether you use yours for gaming or not?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

As far as I know there is nothing that prevents the full framebuffer of the W6900X from being used for textures.

Ah, then I’ll amend my statement to change 32GB with “33GB or more”

 

[Unregistered 4U]

You would think that console developers would feel at home making games on iOS or macOS given similar constraints.

You’d think so, but it’s not clear if they even know how to develop to take advantages of the efficiencies of the target platforms and their unified memory. When they’re designing a game where the code expects that the CPU is going to throw geometry at a separate GPU (over a comparably slow bus), then they likely end up with stuff like Cyberpunk where the console versions were performing far below the capabilities of the respective systems.

For those that are successful and the games look good, could it be that they’d look better and run better with tweaks to really take advantage of the fact that the CPU and GPU have the same memory pool? I look at demos folks are releasing well after the useful lifetime of some of those older systems and it’s clear there was a LOT of performance left on the table in an effort to ship and sell and get working on the next thing.

 

[diamond.g]

You’d think so, but it’s not clear if they even know how to develop to take advantages of the efficiencies of the target platforms and their unified memory. When they’re designing a game where the code expects that the CPU is going to throw geometry at a separate GPU (over a comparably slow bus), then they likely end up with stuff like Cyberpunk where the console versions were performing far below the capabilities of the respective systems.

For those that are successful and the games look good, could it be that they’d look better and run better with tweaks to really take advantage of the fact that the CPU and GPU have the same memory pool? I look at demos folks are releasing well after the useful lifetime of some of those older systems and it’s clear there was a LOT of performance left on the table in an effort to ship and sell and get working on the next thing.

From a console perspective, it depends. If a game is exclusive (say like Uncharted or Last of Us) then the developer is able to extract a lot out of the hardware and can put out stuff that folks didn't think was possible. Anything that is cross platform loses that level of love as it has to run on multiple platforms.

Cyberpunk 2077 is a horrible example because that game was/is PC first, so the console versions (All of them) suffered as a result.

True or false- Apple’s Silicon on Chip is only getting faster, whether you use yours for gaming or not?

I am not sure what that has to do with Apple being directly involved in gaming (from the perspective of developing or publishing). Sure AS is going to get faster.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

From a console perspective, it depends. If a game is exclusive (say like Uncharted or Last of Us) then the developer is able to extract a lot out of the hardware and can put out stuff that folks didn't think was possible. Anything that is cross platform loses that level of love as it has to run on multiple platforms.

Cyberpunk 2077 is a horrible example because that game was/is PC first, so the console versions (All of them) suffered as a result.

Agreed. I still wonder if Uncharted still had some performance left on the table just because it got to the point where it was “good enough”.

And I didn’t realize until just now that they were using their own engine Oh well, there ARE benefits to baking your own, but, as they’ve hopefully learned (not likely) some big downsides.

 

[diamond.g]

Agreed. I still wonder if Uncharted still had some performance left on the table just because it got to the point where it was “good enough”.

And I didn’t realize until just now that they were using their own engine Oh well, there ARE benefits to baking your own, but, as they’ve hopefully learned (not likely) some big downsides.

Yeah historically Sony uses in-house engines. This time around they seem to be throwing money at Epic so maybe one of their first party studios plan on using it. We know MS uses UE.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Yeah historically Sony uses in-house engines. This time around they seem to be throwing money at Epic so maybe one of their first party studios plan on using it. We know MS uses UE.

I was just thinking about that Epic money. I can imagine…

Now remember, Epic, when you start suing OTHER folks for their App stores, remember to, as Will Smith would say, “Leave our company out of your ******* mouth.”

 

[Imhotep397]

In my opinion, Apple does not want to demean itself by making gaming computers.

I also think this is the core fallacy that Apple believes. It's utterly ridiculous to believe that people that use Macs for work purposes would all of a sudden find the them completely unusable if Macs also happened to run "AAA" games like a champ. Windows (?)

The bigger problem ultimately is that supporting that fallacy is also costing Apple in more areas than just gaming. Various fields have been capitalizing on proprietary hardware and proprietary APIs that Nvidia built around ten years ago as a result Apple is at a significant development deficit. Every developer isn't going to choose to close that gap for Apple by adopting the Apple way of doing things and some that will initially won't support it fully for the long term as we've already seen in the past.

Ideally Apple would mend fences with Nvidia and probably AMD as well to get those CUDA core and Stream Processors into the Mx line for the Mac Studio and Mac Pro atleast in the near future, create a path and encourage a transition to Metal exclusively. This would leave the door open for more developers immediately to get on or stay on the Mac and encourage more competition since CUDA would be easy, but Metal would likely offer better performance since there would probably be more GPU cores for Metal than any other.

Building an alliance with a company like Sony could accelerate the transition for games and provide constantly improving benchmarks entice other developers in other areas.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The bigger problem ultimately is that supporting that fallacy is also costing Apple in more areas than just gaming. Various fields have been capitalizing on proprietary hardware and proprietary APIs that Nvidia built around ten years ago as a result Apple is at a significant development deficit. Every developer isn't going to choose to close that gap for Apple by adopting the Apple way of doing things and some that will initially won't support it fully for the long term as we've already seen in the past.

The Mac is a side business to Apple by this point. The majority of their revenues are non-Mac, so losing a few hundred thousand folks that are steeped in an Nvidia workflow is of little consequence if those users are replaced by a few million consumers that just think the MacBook Air is a fantastic little machine.

 

[Imhotep397]

The Mac is a side business to Apple

Developing, promoting, distributing and supporting Mx desktops seems a bit too expensive as a side business I think. It probably would have been cheaper to just switch to AMD CPUs.

Alternately, a lot of people want to use the iOS revenue as a sort of catch all excuse for Apple to half-ass anything else neglecting the fact that the majority of the iOS balanced on a pinhead...10% of iOS gamers essentially with the gaming equivalent of gambler's addiction.

On top of that Epic has been kicking that pin. Apple will likely lose half of even most of that revenue if they are forced to abide by the judgement that they have to allow third parties to compete for secondary sales for iOS game credits.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Developing, promoting, distributing and supporting Mx desktops seems a bit too expensive as a side business I think. It probably would have been cheaper to just switch to AMD CPUs.

Alternately, a lot of people want to use the iOS revenue as a sort of catch all excuse for Apple to half-ass anything else neglecting the fact that the majority of the iOS balanced on a pinhead...10% of iOS gamers essentially with the gaming equivalent of gambler's addiction.

On top of that Epic has been kicking that pin. Apple will likely lose half of even most of that revenue if they are forced to abide by the judgement that they have to allow third parties to compete for secondary sales for iOS game credits.

No, Apple Silicon is key to it being a side business as they don’t have to pay to license Intel or AMD’s technologies and motherboard designs. Apple Silicon, extended from their solutions designed for iOS, is key to Apple continuing to make Macs. And, even though there’s no bootcamp for Windows now (causing a lot of folks to leave the Mac), they’re still a delight to millions of folks that have no idea what x86 is and don’t care.

 

[droplink]

It's more than a side business.
I know that iPhones are the biggest hit since ever, and the various services/subscriptions that follow are the majority of Apple's income, but as I am sure someone at Apple realised, that wont last.
That is why you MUST diversify as a company, because you never know what the next big thing is. The iPhone was a side business 15 years ago.

That is why Apple should invest in gaming (and AI and other things) as you never know what might come from it.
Nvidia is earning a bundle from suckers mining crypto.

With the M1 architecture, I think Apple has a chance at creating a new "system" for gaming.
The gaming on Apple TV concept never really worked (I blame Apple) but now that the hardware is no longer the limiting factor, perhaps Apple should reconsider.
A basic M1 powered Apple TV for the normal folk, and a "M2" (or whatever it is called) Apple TV that can game as hard as PS5 or xBox would be the great thing.

 

[Imhotep397]

they don’t have to pay to license Intel or AMD’s technologies and motherboard designs.

Interesting...I still liked the idea of them maintaining one x86 Mac with the Mac Pro and that definitely seems to be going the way of the Dodo. They have to license ARM still so it's not completely free of licensing costs. Still hoping they get at CUDA processing one way or another. Licensing CUDA cores or translation just to have feature parity across platforms then optimization or transition can come later.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They have to license ARM still so it's not completely free of licensing costs. Still hoping they get at CUDA processing one way or another. Licensing CUDA cores or translation just to have feature parity across platforms then optimization or transition can come later.

The ARM license isn’t ongoing, that was a one time lifetime license, and seems to have been a good investment! Oh, and that’s the other part I hadn’t considered, they don’t have to deal with licensing/buying parts from AMD or Nvidia either.

Anyone that needs CUDA is going to do it via some Nvidia solution as Nvidia wouldn’t have it any other way. The future on the Mac is Metal and support for anything NOT Metal is likely not only off the table, but in the trash under the other organic refuse and composting nicely

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It's more than a side business.
I know that iPhones are the biggest hit since ever, and the various services/subscriptions that follow are the majority of Apple's income, but as I am sure someone at Apple realised, that wont last.

Right, which is why they’ve been going into services. Even a pre-owned or hand-me-down iPhone from 5 years ago can still be set up to generate revenue for Apple by way of Apple One. And, as that number of devices grows and grows, so, too does the number of folks eligible to purchase services. With that many devices out there, they don’t even need a huge percentage of them to drive 21.9% of revenue, double that of the Mac.

"M2" (or whatever it is called) Apple TV that can game as hard as PS5 or xBox would be the great thing.

An M2 running tvOS wouldn’t necessarily improve macOS gaming, though. And, games would still need to be purchased through the App Store… if developers haven’t jumped through those hoops for the great selling iPad, they’re not likely to do so for a lesser selling tvOS.

 

[droplink]

Right, which is why they’ve been going into services. Even a pre-owned or hand-me-down iPhone from 5 years ago can still be set up to generate revenue for Apple by way of Apple One. And, as that number of devices grows and grows, so, too does the number of folks eligible to purchase services. With that many devices out there, they don’t even need a huge percentage of them to drive 21.9% of revenue, double that of the Mac.


An M2 running tvOS wouldn’t necessarily improve macOS gaming, though. And, games would still need to be purchased through the App Store… if developers haven’t jumped through those hoops for the great selling iPad, they’re not likely to do so for a lesser selling tvOS.

Yes, it is a chicken and egg situation. Something needs to be created first, and that is the infrastructure (ie. the hardware and OS) and that is something Apple can create quite well, should it so want.

 

[Bodhitree]

A large part of the PC consumer market is concerned with gaming, and this drives PC technology to deliver ever greater speeds. New cutting edge games take advantage of this, such as Cyberpunk 2077 and Metro Exodus, to draw more photorealistic vista's, better characters and more detailed monsters. In essence the industry revolves around this push to create movie-quality visuals, which requires hardware makers to keep ramping up computing speed as the number #1 priority.

But is that really necessary? If you look at past gaming industry launches, like the Nintendo Wii and the Switch, performance was not the number one priority. In fact, whenever you look in the last fifteen years, there have been effective launches on hardware of varying levels of power. There have been great games on the PlayStation 3, Xbox One, Wii and others.

What really matters is do these games work as good art. If you look at games like Journey on the PS3, or Limbo and Inside on the PC, or The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on Nintendo Switch, the visuals work as art pieces, every frame a painting, to coin a famous phrase from the movie industry. You can make a great game for any platform, as long as you take that into account.

So on a platform like M1, where Apple has prioritised performance-per-watt to create relatively fast and energy efficient processors, it should still be possible to create great games. However is it possible to create great ports? To take a game that was meant to be photorealistic and adapt it to a lesser hardware platform will give poor results. I think to create great games for this platform will mean building artistic games that run on the hardware.

 

[leman]

But is that really necessary? If you look at past gaming industry launches, like the Nintendo Wii and the Switch, performance was not the number one priority. In fact, whenever you look in the last fifteen years, there have been effective launches on hardware of varying levels of power. There have been great games on the PlayStation 3, Xbox One, Wii and others.

Yep. Good games have nothing to go with graphics. For the last two weeks I have had a blast playing Vampire Survivors which is a very silly game using very simple sprite graphics.

But photorealistic games are a current fashion and one just can’t ignore that.

So on a platform like M1, where Apple has prioritised performance-per-watt to create relatively fast and energy efficient processors, it should still be possible to create great games. However is it possible to create great ports? To take a game that was meant to be photorealistic and adapt it to a lesser hardware platform will give poor results.

Of course it is. Already M1 has more than enough performance to run titles like Cyberpunk at full HD medium/high 30-40 fps, which is absolutely playable.

 

[StudioMacs]

What really matters is do these games work as good art. If you look at games like Journey on the PS3, or Limbo and Inside on the PC, or The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild on Nintendo Switch, the visuals work as art pieces, every frame a painting, to coin a famous phrase from the movie industry. You can make a great game for any platform, as long as you take that into account.

Apple needs first-party games designed by artists, from not only a visual perspective, but also story and gameplay. It’s not enough to throw money at third-party exclusives for Apple Arcade, especially since a lot of those games (I’m looking at you Star Trek) are just mobile games with the micro transactions taken out. To be successful at gaming (rather than casual mobile apps) Apple needs the type of commitment they put into creating shows like Ted Lasso or Severence for TV+.

 

[leman]

Apple needs first-party games designed by artists, from not only a visual perspective, but also story and gameplay. It’s not enough to throw money at third-party exclusives for Apple Arcade, especially since a lot of those games (I’m looking at you Star Trek) are just mobile games with the micro transactions taken out. To be successful at gaming (rather than casual mobile apps) Apple needs the type of commitment they put into creating shows like Ted Lasso or Severence for TV+.

I am not sure whether Apple should directly get into the gaming business or not, but I fully agree with the problem you mention. Modern games have the same problem as modern movies: creatives have very little control over the product. While it is very important to have effective management that keeps the team focused, putting managers in full control gives you train-wrecks like Cyberpunk. A good product - whatever it is - can be only made by people who are truly passionate about it. Incidentally, what is often quoted as a reason for the high quality of Pixar movies is the fact that creatives were the one in charge. And you also see it in gaming studios like Larian where the founder and the team are really passionate about the games they make and want to do the right thing for their player.

It’s funny you mention Apple TV though. Most Apple shows are utterly terrible, they are so preoccupied with playing it safe that the end result is sad mediocrity. I haven’t watched Ted Lasso though, it might be an exception.