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.
Gaming isn’t dead for ARM
- Thread starter Sledneck52
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple are a 'huge' 'if.'
1.5 trillion and headed to 2 trillion.
They could, at this point, sell the telephone directory and make it a success.
So a redesigned ATV remote isn't out the question.
Nor is their own game controller priced at £60. It's not like there is 'that much' competition.
They sell £600 wheels and £1k stands, don't they?
Azrael.
Apple Rumored to Be Working on an ARM-Based Console Most Likely Featuring Its Own A-Series Silicon
After rumors of a powerful Apple TV inbound, Apple is reported to be working on an ARM-based console that will take on current-gen hardware
wccftech.com
That’s quite a stretch from what I actually said. Apple already has an attractive gaming platform. Hundreds of millions of devices belonging to users who spend more on in app purchases than other smartphone users is an attractive market.
The question here was AAA games which I took to mean those that can stretch the current top end gaming hardware. If Apple GPUs can perform above a certain level, they’ll start to get those titles. Does GTAVI need a 2080ti to run? I don’t think they need to go straight for the summit and deliver 4K at 240fps.
You are aware that you can use pretty much every Bluetooth controller ever built with all current Apple devices? Including the massively popular gamepads of all three relevant console manufacturers?
And yet, the even compared to current Macs fairly weak Nintendo Switch got true AAA games like Doom, Wolfenstein 2, The Witcher 3, The Outer Worlds, Mortal Kombat 11, Saints Row 3+4, Dark Souls, Hellblade, and Skyrim. It even has a port of Blizzard's Overwatch.
The Mac got none of these.
My point stands. Performance is not a decisive factor.
Who knows? GTA 6 is still years away. By the time it's out, it might as well.
Last edited:
I think the definition of "System on a Chip" has been stretched a bit here....
The PS5 and Xbox Series X have SOC specifically designed to play AAA games using highly bespoke motherboards, cooling solutions, bios, etc all geared towards that purpose. And as many have indicated, likely both systems will sell at a loss initially. Apple's SOC are geared towards general purpose computing, totally different applications.
The PS5 and Xbox Series X have SOC specifically designed to play AAA games using highly bespoke motherboards, cooling solutions, bios, etc all geared towards that purpose. And as many have indicated, likely both systems will sell at a loss initially. Apple's SOC are geared towards general purpose computing, totally different applications.
Theres a lot to consider when you decide what platform(s) you are going to develop for. What expertise do you already have? What capacity do they have? How much will it cost for an extra platform or three? How much time will it add to the release? How much extra money will it generate? Does the pricing strategy allow for Apple's 30% cut? Will players pay an extra premium to allow for that cut? Are you going to fall foul of any other app store policy or have issues with violent or adult content?
It seems what is bothering you is that not every house has adopted the App Store as an essential platform. The fact is there are AAA titles available already and the cash they make is going to turn more heads. Maybe you don't like the versions of those titles but some of them are clearly doing something right.
Pokemon Go was the first Pokemon game on any platform other than Nintendo wasn't it? Its not a "proper" Pokemon game because they don't want to lose those sales. People bought Gameboys and Switches just for Pokemon games. They don't want to risk losing that so the distinction isn't anything Apple could have done more about. They already delivered a platform compelling enough for Nintendo to break a 20 year rule to get on board with. And it paid off big time.
Call of Duty is on there. Again, you seem to disapprove of the version but its fine. It has most of the classic maps from CoD 4+ and it has Battle Royale mode its good fun to play. And people are spending money on skins for their characters and guns an so on.
As it stands, these mobile games are different to the desktop cousins but not by that much. CoD is a great example because there hasn't been a Mac native version since Modern Warfare (the first one). Now there will be another. And you can play on any Apple device you have. You don't need a sub 2 year old (£1000+) iMac to run it nicely. It runs well on an iPhone 6S. It runs beautifully on an 11.
Why not stop moaning and just see what Apple builds now and how the developers respond? If there's still a game you can't get on Apple, maybe go moan at the developer instead?
It seems what is bothering you is that not every house has adopted the App Store as an essential platform. The fact is there are AAA titles available already and the cash they make is going to turn more heads. Maybe you don't like the versions of those titles but some of them are clearly doing something right.
Pokemon Go was the first Pokemon game on any platform other than Nintendo wasn't it? Its not a "proper" Pokemon game because they don't want to lose those sales. People bought Gameboys and Switches just for Pokemon games. They don't want to risk losing that so the distinction isn't anything Apple could have done more about. They already delivered a platform compelling enough for Nintendo to break a 20 year rule to get on board with. And it paid off big time.
Call of Duty is on there. Again, you seem to disapprove of the version but its fine. It has most of the classic maps from CoD 4+ and it has Battle Royale mode its good fun to play. And people are spending money on skins for their characters and guns an so on.
As it stands, these mobile games are different to the desktop cousins but not by that much. CoD is a great example because there hasn't been a Mac native version since Modern Warfare (the first one). Now there will be another. And you can play on any Apple device you have. You don't need a sub 2 year old (£1000+) iMac to run it nicely. It runs well on an iPhone 6S. It runs beautifully on an 11.
Why not stop moaning and just see what Apple builds now and how the developers respond? If there's still a game you can't get on Apple, maybe go moan at the developer instead?
These are not AAA titles. These are stripped-down, casual, often relatively cheaply produced games with the name of an AAA franchise stamped on the front. Games like Elder Scrolls Blades or Diablo Immortal are not the mainstay of these franchises. The full priced, multi-dozen gigabyte console/PC titles with the multi-million dollar budget are. Without these, no one would even bother with this mobile crap.
That I even have to explain this to you – repeatedly! – clearly shows that you don't understand what a "AAA" game is in the first place.
Not counting Modern Warfare 2, of course. And Modern Warfare 3. And Black Ops. And Black Ops III.
Except you don't seem to have a clear definition either. You literally said its not about performance or spec. Now you're moaning because mobile games aren't 50Gb each?
Its either the title or its the performance/spec that makes it AAA. Maybe the popularity? Make your damned mind up and construct a coherent complaint instead of just whinging that people don't understand your rambling nonsense.
Its either the title or its the performance/spec that makes it AAA. Maybe the popularity? Make your damned mind up and construct a coherent complaint instead of just whinging that people don't understand your rambling nonsense.
You clearly don't read and/or understand my post properly. And it shows that I was correct about you having no idea what a AAA game is, if I really have to spell it out for you.
There is a clear cut definition of a AAA game: big production budget, high production value, big marketing budget. That's not my definition, it's the industry-wide accepted definition. Popularity and increasingly humongous installation size are results of a game being AAA, not the cause.
Popularity does not make a AAA game (Minecraft and Stardew Valley are massively popular but not AAA), specs/performance of the platform it's running on does not make a AAA game (see what I wrote about the Switch above), the title does not make a AAA game: CoD Modern Warfare is AAA, CoD: Mobile is not, as it does not meet the criteria.
Last edited:
There was a Call oF Duty: Modern Warfare port on the Mac years ago. Modern Warfare 2 never made it over because Boot Camp.
[automerge]1594720587[/automerge]
Out of interest, which criteria do you think CoDM is missing out on?
Is Pokemon GO AAA?
Some observations: If giant install sizes are results of big spending, then by definition you cannot have a AAA game on a mobile device. In which case, why are you complaining there are no AAAA titles on iOS? You might as well be complaining that you can't run GTA5 on your fridge.
On the other hand, they've taken the steps to trickle down what they can of AAA titles to iOS because the market is sufficiently compelling for them to do so. This implies that when that market has the capacity for your true AAA games, they will be happy to meet that demand.
I could then argue that because CoDM uses assets from years worth of the titles in the series and trades off the same branding for obvious reasons, that it can claim its fair share of the production and marketing budgets. Philosophically speaking, if not for tax purposes.
Last edited:
*cough*
Definitely production and marketing budget. I could even make an argument against CoD: Mobile's production value not meeting AAA standards, as while its assets (maps, player models and skins, game modes, etc.) might be high quality, they are all recycled from the earlier actual AAA entries of the series.
No. While Nintendo spent (and still spends) a lot of money on marketing, the app itself was relatively cheap to develop, and the production value is debatable (again: recycled assets). So it fails two of three criteria.
Correct. Not for a foreseeable time, at least.
I never did?
My whole point is that mobile games are not AAA games, and that any suggestions that these mobile spin-off games would be AAA games - as that stupid, uninformed video does - are just plain idiotic. At no point I implied I wanted AAA games on iOS or lamented the lack thereof.
And that's were this discussion becomes circular and an increasing waste of time, because they did not. Slapping the name of a AAA brand on a cheap product does not make it a AAA product. These mobile spin-offs are little more than a quick and cheap cash grab, leeching of the popularity of the franchises.
Last edited:
Wow, that must have been late. We waited an age for that to appear.
Since it has the franchise title of a AAA game, it can arguably count some of the marketing budget. And if it uses AAA assets, weren't they developed with AAA production values and budgets?
That article discounts the time and effort that went into building PoGo's real world map. Which was crowdsourced using another game.
Were you not saying that the Apple platform was not attractive to AAA developers? Lets distinguish between AAA games and AAA titles. iOS has the titles, once they have the hardware to run big budget games, MacOS should get at least a few.
While you may consider them a quick cash grab, clearly some of them make a significant amount of money. They also serve to promote and continue the franchises to which they belong, as long as they are compelling and entertaining. People will give Apple's revamped silicon a try and if Apple gets it right, it should pay off and bring more. They base is certainly there. Its a bit early to write it off.
That Mac port was released six years ago.
That's not how this works. CoD Mobile certainly profits from the high profile of the franchise, but little money spent to publicise this game specifically remains little money.
Well, I agree you could argue either way, but the game still fails to meet all three criteria necessary.
That crowdsourcing cost Niantic exactly zero dollar. Having your players do the work for you does not count toward a game's budget. Also, they used the base map from Google, for free. So, again no additional cost.
Not attractive for AAA developers to release actual AAA games on it, no.
...aaand we're back in the circular discussion. Once more: the hardware is not the issue, it's Apple's policies preventing iOS from getting big budget title games.
I'm not denying that. This is why these spin-off titles are so popular with the big game publishers, as they earn them some extra amount of cash with very little effort in comparison to the expensive main line franchise titles.
Nothing of this changes the basic fact: the mobile spin-offs are not anywhere close to the main entries of the corresponding series. CoD Mobile is not CoD Modern Warfare. Elder Scrolls Blades is not Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. The Sims Mobile is not The Sims 4. Assassin's Creed Rebellion is not Assassin's Creed Valhalla. Forza Street is not Forza Horizons 4.
Which is pretty much literally what I already said in my first post in this thread. We are back where we started, the loop is closed, everything is said.
Last edited:
Well, at the very least it won't be worse than our current situation. Mac gets AAA games like a year or two after they come out on PC anyway. Aspyr and Feral aren't going anywhere either. And I'd say that porting to ARM is less of a challenge than porting to MacOS anyway. We're already seeing hints of ARM in WoW and Unity's already on board.
The video's kinda ass in their assumptions, but AAA titles have been adopting mobile game practices like predatory microtransactions and in-game advertisements anyway so it's really a distinction of "do I pay $60 to have lootboxes shoved in my face or do I run an iOS game that's f2p and have lootboxes shoved in my face?"
The video's kinda ass in their assumptions, but AAA titles have been adopting mobile game practices like predatory microtransactions and in-game advertisements anyway so it's really a distinction of "do I pay $60 to have lootboxes shoved in my face or do I run an iOS game that's f2p and have lootboxes shoved in my face?"
The Windows version was 2009. I call 5 years pretty late.
The he problem is your industry standard definition of AAA is worthless.Game studios are businesses. The dream is going to be to spend as little as possible and make as much as profitable, same as any other business. Measuring the top tier of an industry by how much is spent, even its wasted is utterly worthless to anyone.
Popularity, revenue, technical quality, playability, addictiveness or engagement, I'm sure there are many many metrics which have infinitely more merit than expense. Otherwise they could just play 10x the going rate for their staff or ads. Its just a daft metric.
Further evidence that your metrics are ridiculous.
A developer of an AAA title is an AAA developer. They've shown interest and Apple Silicon will make things more attractive to them.
We may be going in circles but you've established a standard to back your position that doesn't really do it. Or you've adopted an existing standard, doesn't matter.
I bet if you ask the studios, they will tell you these are their true AAA titles.
I could spend $50B cloning Tetris if had it and wanted to. Why would I bother? This is far less attractive to any developer than a market of hundreds of millions of users who pay handsomely for digital assets that take minutes to generate in many cases.
Now it is.
It's not my definition. I told you that.
In part, you are correct. Ideally, a business would prefer to spent zero dollars to make all the dollars. That's just not how this works in the real life.
You are forgetting one important thing: the developers actually have a good incentive to spent a crapload of money on developing AAA games. These games earn them a significantly larger crapload of money.
CoD Mobile is actually a very successful mobile game, and generated $324 million in revenue since its release in October 2019 until June 2020. That's impressive for a mobile game, and even would even be quite impressive for many big budget games.
However, this amount of money pales in comparison to the revenue the last main line title of that series, Modern Warfare, generated in just three months: $1 billion.
I don't think you understand that the successes of CoD Mobile and Pokemon Go are singular exceptions among the spin-off games we are talking about here. The vast majority of them makes much less money.
This is a completely different discussion about what makes a good game. The topic are AAA games, and expense is an important metric when it comes to this class of games.
I agree with you that expense says nothing about whether a game is good. Stardew Valley and PUBG are low budget games but highly popular. Anthem is a very expensive game, but is complete shyte.
But not everything coming from a AAA developer is a AAA game.
Or maybe it's that you keep trying to shift what this discussion is about? Short reminder: it's about the claim that Apple Silicon brings AAA gaming to the Mac. This claim can only be discussed when applying the accepted standard what a AAA game is in the first place.
I bet they won't. See what I said above about which games really bring in the moolah. Also, everyone in the industry agrees about what a AAA game is.
Last edited:
I covered that further on.
You talk like spending a crapload is a guarantee of success. I'm sure it isn't. Which means AAA games are a gamble. New ones at any rate. Much like blockbuster movies can be. Possibly not quite that risky though. I except its easier to tell whether you've got a good one on your hands before launch than with a movie. You can fix it too.
I'm sure they must have spent an absolute fortune on advertising though. Must be in the hundreds of millions.
Of course I do. Success wasn't one of your metrics though.
Its a discussion about what makes a good game from a business point of view. Maybe they'd pick MW over CoDM, but CoDM is a near freebie having already made older CoD titles. And you can probably factor in the development time as well as cost and capacity. With a AAA, you can have your whole operation dedicated to one property and only make one game every few years. With mobile you can cheaply develop several and know pretty fast how many hits you've got on your hands.
I wonder what the ratio is like. You certainly hear plenty about games that cost millions and take years to never get released. I expect there are more that we never even hear about.
No but as long as you are attracting those devs, you are in position to get AAA games when your platform has the storage and/or GPUs to run them.
Apple has the attention of AAA developers without the hardware for AAA games. Apple Silicon should bring that hardware and the market share they need to spend the big bucks.
They might change the way they build them so they produce more scalable game that play on the entire platform one way or another, but Apple Silicon definitely improves the chances over Intel. Under Intel they just shrug and say "Hey, Boot Camp" or "Not enough performance".
Its too early to say it will bring those games but its clearly the latest step in the right direction.
Your personal opinion on the metrics which define a AAA games is ultimately irrelevant to this discussion.
We discussed this already. "Success" is not part of the definition of "AAA". I mentioned Anthem as example of a failed AAA game.
We discussed this already. Marketing budget is part of the definition of a AAA game. So, yes, you are correct in your assumption.
We discussed this already. This is not the topic of the thread. The current AAA model does produce "good" games from a business point of view. Of the 10 best-selling games of the last decade by copies, at least 6 are true AAA games. By revenue, it's 9 out of 10. That's why they keep making them.
We discussed this already. Many Mac models already exceed the technical requirements for AAA games today.
See above. Apple Silicon will only make it easier for the big publishers to dump their mobile spin-offs unchanged on Macs. It does not make the Mac more attractive for actual AAA games than it already is... which we discussed already.
Last edited:
Not really a relevant response to that line.
Agreeing with what I said while sounding like you don't is odd.
But you aren't allowing for the massive risk of creating AAA games. $300m on development and marketing is a colossal gamble
If only 60% of the top ten count as AAA, then AAA isn't as great as you seem to think.
And thus they happily play those games via boot camp and most studios would prefer you spend $100 on a Windows license then them spending millions porting to MacOS.
Maybe so but that doesn't mean they can't also try the odd AAA game on the platform too. If they can build one that scales down to mobile perhaps. Apple has provided tools to make porting easier already, if they can provide compelling graphics performance and a big enough market with it they should get a bite eventually.
Apple Silicon isn't the end of the line, its the first step.
There is obviously a completely different discussion with me going on in your head than in reality.
It is. Guess why 18 of the 20 games on the list of highest-grossing games in the last decade are entries to franchises already proven to be able to recuperate these investments. Literally half of this list are CoD titles.
You are wilfully ignoring the for the business side of the story important part about the revenue.
Last edited:
You quoted me saying "Success is not one of your metrics" and responded with "Success is not part of the definition of AAA".
In what world was that worth doing?
Further reinforcing that AAA titles are a gamble.
A $500m investment on a game is a big gamble and Apple's App Store commission might be a bigger hurdle than the hardware or market share. Lets just stop and wait and see.
If we're talking about the Mac, then they don't have to release their game on the App Store.