In 3 years, 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games will be Macs

[sunny5]

I'm not making any predictions that all or most AAA games will get a Mac version in 2-3 years. All I'm saying is that in 3 years, 50% of all gaming computers sold yearly will be Macs. Feel free to fact check my math.

I'm, however, implying that AAA games will follow after that. If developers are smart and are looking at the numbers, they will be planning Mac versions of their future games being released in 2-3 years.

How do you even know that Mac will sell 50% out of all gaming computers? Even now, Mac is such a minor for gaming market. You are totally ignoring the software and platform aspect. So far, only less than 1~3 games ported for M1.

Also, Apple is not even trying to expand the gaming market share like MS is doing and therefore, it's totally delusional thinking that Mac will take 50% of all gaming computer in 3 years. They only care about the mobile gaming. Steam stats shows that macOS is only 2.51%. Even now, many games are not supported or ported on macOS. How come then?

 

[leman]

How do you even know that Mac will sell 50% out of all gaming computers? Even now, Mac is such a minor for gaming market. You are totally ignoring the software and platform aspect. So far, only less than 1~3 games ported for M1.

I gave you the numbers couple of months ago. Given that every single one Apple Silicon Mac qualifies as a gaming PC, reaching 30% of gaming-grade PC shipments by 2025 is realistic. Apple just needs to sell around 15 million Apple Silicon Macs or close to it.

 

[diamond.g]

I'm not making any predictions that all or most AAA games will get a Mac version in 2-3 years. All I'm saying is that in 3 years, 50% of all gaming computers sold yearly will be Macs. Feel free to fact check my math.

I'm, however, implying that AAA games will follow after that. If developers are smart and are looking at the numbers, they will be planning Mac versions of their future games being released in 2-3 years.

I am not disputing the math, I am hoping you are right and that game developers will support macOS.

 

[EntropyQ3]

I am not disputing the math, I am hoping you are right and that game developers will support macOS.

The story goes that when a journalist showed the book '100 Authors against Einstein' [March 13, 1931], to Einstein, he replied "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"

And there are demonstrable flaws with a couple of the underlying premises here.
1. The assertion that the M1 Macs are "gaming capable" whereas intel/AMD integrated graphics solutions are not, is both arbitrary and demonstrably false. Simply go into the Steam hardware survey and note the number of integrated graphics PC:s registered. And few people would argue that the recently unveiled Steam Deck isn't gaming capable.
2. The assumption that having more capable hardware will drive game publishers to MacOS, where the counterexample could be the Switch that has graphics hardware FAR weaker than even pre-AppleSilicon integrated graphics, but still has a much richer library of games.

There are other, much stronger market forces at work than hardware capabilities.
I hope, even believe, that publishing games that run under MacOS will increase in attractiveness. But I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. ?

 

[senttoschool]

The story goes that when a journalist showed the book '100 Authors against Einstein' [March 13, 1931], to Einstein, he replied "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"

And there are demonstrable flaws with a couple of the underlying premises here.
1. The assertion that the M1 Macs are "gaming capable" whereas intel/AMD integrated graphics solutions are not, is both arbitrary and demonstrably false. Simply go into the Steam hardware survey and note the number of integrated graphics PC:s registered. And few people would argue that the recently unveiled Steam Deck isn't gaming capable.
2. The assumption that having more capable hardware will drive game publishers to MacOS, where the counterexample could be the Switch that has graphics hardware FAR weaker than even pre-AppleSilicon integrated graphics, but still has a much richer library of games.

There are other, much stronger market forces at work than hardware capabilities.
I hope, even believe, that publishing games that run under MacOS will increase in attractiveness. But I wouldn't bet my life savings on it. ?

I think you misunderstood.

1. Intel/AMD iGPUs are only meant to drive a monitor and play very old games at the lowest settings. Nothing more. Apple's iGPUs are meant to replace discrete GPUs. Totally different ball game.

2. Switch runs games at 720p or lower. It has enough power to drive games at that resolution. Meanwhile, the vast majority of pre-Apple Silicon Macs did not even come close to driving games at their native screen resolutions.

Developers will make AAA games for Flash if the market size is big enough.

 

[sunny5]

I gave you the numbers couple of months ago. Given that every single one Apple Silicon Mac qualifies as a gaming PC, reaching 30% of gaming-grade PC shipments by 2025 is realistic. Apple just needs to sell around 15 million Apple Silicon Macs or close to it.

That number is FALSE and also, selling hardware does not increase the market share because macOS for gaming sucks. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Steam stats already shows only 2.51% of players are macOS. How do you even expect to sell more when developers are not interested Apple Silicon Mac? How many games are even ported since 2020?

 

[sunny5]

Alright, since you think your post is a proof, let me disagree with you.

The M1 is as fast as a 1050Ti in gaming
The 1050ti is the second most common GPU according to the Steam Survey
This means AAA developers have to make games playable on a 1050ti level GPU
50% of all Steam gamers have a quad-core or dual-core CPU
The M1 is more than 2x faster than the most common Steam CPUs in both single-thread and multi-threaded benchmarks

You are totally ignoring the software or platform aspect. You clearly didnt even bother to write anything related to software and platform at all cause you know that macOS isn't good. Consoles have poor hardware specs and yet they take 25% of all gaming market. PC is another 25% and 50% is mobile gaming. Even in Intel era with x86 supports suffered lack of games but you were still able to play PC/Console games through boot camp but not anymore because macOS is now ARM based.

How come Nintendo Switch with a poor Tegra chip is a popular console device? This already proves that you are wrong about what you are thinking. Furthermore, Apple lacks so many things that I can not mention everything.

The M1 will be the slowest Mac chip Apple will ever make. Expect Apple Silicon chips to get much more powerful.

Doesn't matter. The platform is more important. Apple doesn't even have exclusive games to attract players to Mac. Also, in terms of GPU, we dont know that. Apple doesn't even support Ray tracing, DLSS, and direct storage.

Ming Chi Kuo predicts that Mac shipments will increase by 100% within 3 years due to Apple Silicon, which means Macs will ship 35m units in 2023.

Stop trolling. You think the prediction from a leaker is your source? How laughable. Also, selling hardware does not increase the gaming market share cause they mainly focus on something else. When was the last time that Apple invested on PC/Console gaming other than Apple Arcade? Prediction is prediction, nothing more and it's a source.

Every single one of the 35m Macs sold will be capable of playing AAA games from low to high settings

And yet, developers are not interested to support games even right now. Dont say we have to wait a few more years. They already have enough time to port games to Apple Silicon like WOW but there are less than 3 games being native for M1 Mac. Almost all AAA games developed from Windows, not macOS.

For comparison, the total number of PC gaming computers sold is 35m in 2019

Where does it even say PC gaming computers sold 35m in 2019? How do you even know Mac's market share for gaming computer? How do you know how many Mac users play games? Are you ignoring the OS market share? If you want to be logical, you better bring info to show why macOS is good for gaming.

IDC: Mac shipments rise industry-leading 49% in Q4, Apple boosts market share to 8% - 9to5Mac

A new report out today from IDC features the firm’s latest estimate for worldwide PC shipments for the holiday quarter....

9to5mac.com

Apple is only 8% in 2020 Q4 and they didnt include consoles and custom PC. Increased shipment does not heavily affect the market share cause Apple is not the only computer company to sell computers. You brought a pointless link which does not support anything.

All this means in 3 years, Macs will be 50% of all computers capable of playing AAA games sold each year

What a delusional logic. There are only a few players playing games on Mac and Steam stats proves it. What about others like Epic games, Origin, Ubisoft, GOG, and more? It won't be different from Steam because macOS is such a minor market for gaming. Your logic works only if other PC computers aren't selling for several years. Like I said, PC sold way more than Mac and you clearly ignored that. Windows market share is around 80%. How the hell can macOS takes more market share than Windows? Apple is only 8% for overall computer and it will be way less for gaming computer + custom gaming computer.

For AAA developers, that means the Mac gaming market goes from ~2% right now to about 50% within 3 years

You are totally ignoring the fact that PC/Console are dominating the gaming market, not macOS. What does macOS have advantages from PC/Console? macOS suffers lack of platform, technology, and market share and yet Apple is NOT even trying to expand.

Don't be stupid. Even many Reddit threats already being negative that macOS will take 50% of all gaming computer and I have no idea what you are thinking of. Apple dont even have supports for gaming platform and technology related to gaming. At this point, Apple Silicon Mac is already worse than Intel Mac in terms of gaming. You can play all games with Bootcamp with Intel Mac while Apple Silicon Mac can't do that.

So I keep telling you that macOS's software and platform aspect is totally terrible for gaming. How many times do I have to tell you that? The only thing you care is the hardware and it's not how it works. Admit it, the size of macOS for gaming is so small that only a few people play games on Mac and Steam stats proves it. Velheim developer said exactly same thing. What about Rocket League? They cut the support for macOS it's less than 1%. Blizzard? They stop porting their games to Mac. Which platforms do even care to support macOS?

Currently a lot of developers aren't even supporting any current or previous games to macOS. How come? Because macOS has a few game players and therefore, not profitable. If you think only new games will support Apple Silicon then dont expect it cause it won't gonna happen and even it does, it will be way less than what Intel Mac had. Face the fact, not a leak.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

But even if you are doing high customization for both Mac and Windows, doesn't the added cost still depend heavily on whether you're including a Mac port from the beginning vs. adding one after the fact? I would think this would be a key qualifier, but you've not mentioned it here.

Yes, it would differ. But besides the usual graphics API differences, I think these platform specific "hardcoded" features are a thing of the past. You will always have the issue of 3rd party libraries and compatibility. Take Diablo 4 as an example. It's Windows only (ignore consoles), it wouldn't really make much of a difference to develop macOS compatibility now or do it later on.

Interesting. Could you expand on that? What type of scientists are they, and in what way are they terrible?

As a researcher, it's not my job to develop products. And I believe I speak for almost every scientist, we need to get results in our field, say new algorithms or improve on old ones. We don't care about products and how they evolve beyond out research projects. So this modularity in software engineering is given up to get results faster.

That is totally different from my industry days, where products where the goal. New functionalities/features once or twice a year, either standard (update) or sold as add-ons. That's where you need good software engineering.

As far as teaching goes, we're teaching the basics to our students. What else could we do? The larger the projects are, the more important software engineering becomes. And it's obvious that large projects usually have more people involved of which some are very experienced and some are not. You can't do this with students learning SE.

I tried it once, we developed a small racing game and had a physical reproduction of the track and cars in reality. So people could control RC cars and it was transferred to the game. About 25 students involved, it was a complete mess in the end due to lack the lack of experience they had in such "large" projects.

How do you even know that Mac will sell 50% out of all gaming computers?

Because he assumes that every Mac sold is a gaming computer while not every PC sold is a gaming computer, which is of course heavily flawed. Most PCs sold could also be used as gaming PCs. That is of course not the case, but the same can be said for the Mac, only a fraction sold will be used for gaming.

1. Intel/AMD iGPUs are only meant to drive a monitor and play very old games at the lowest settings. Nothing more. Apple's iGPUs are meant to replace discrete GPUs. Totally different ball game.

And that's where you couldn't be more wrong.

And now you might say, it's not the quality you expect for a game and you want at least the performance of a 1080Ti or whatever. And then I could say, proper gaming requires at least a 3080. People are perfectly happy playing games every now and then with iGPUs. It's not my thing personally, I have an old Titan RTX in my gaming PC and a RTX8000 in my workstation. Doesn't mean that everyone requires one of these.

 

[sunny5]

Because he assumes that every Mac sold is a gaming computer while not every PC sold is a gaming computer, which is of course heavily flawed. Most PCs sold could also be used as gaming PCs. That is of course not the case, but the same can be said for the Mac, only a fraction sold will be used for gaming.

The OP clearly dont know anything about the gaming industry.

1. Intel/AMD iGPUs are only meant to drive a monitor and play very old games at the lowest settings. Nothing more. Apple's iGPUs are meant to replace discrete GPUs. Totally different ball game.

Wrong. Both Intel and AMD suffers poor iGPU performance just because they didnt care about it instead of using an old GPU architecture. For example, AMD APU still using Vega.

However, both Intel and AMD are developing new iGPU such as Xe and RDNA. Don't even think that iGPU sucks cause they just didnt make a good one as an external GPU is the main focus for gaming. There are still a lot of people playing games with iGPU.

 

[EntropyQ3]

Developers will make AAA games for Flash if the market size is big enough.

This is the correct answer.
And the interest in buying games for MacOS will grow, if nothing less from the absence of boot camp.
(Of course having a solidly growing installed base of reasonably capable hardware won’t hurt. And the generally more affluent demographic has to intrigue at least some publisher board rooms. But to what extent publishers are prepared to try to build a market on the Mac remains to be seen, and it has been … quiet. So far.)

 

[sunny5]

This is the correct answer.
And the interest in buying games for MacOS will grow, if nothing less from the absence of boot camp.
(Of course having a solidly growing installed base of reasonably capable hardware won’t hurt. And the generally more affluent demographic has to intrigue at least some publisher board rooms. But to what extent publishers are prepared to try to build a market on the Mac remains to be seen, and it has been … quiet. So far.)

The problem is the size of Mac market is already too small. His logic works only if nobody sells PC while Mac is the only computer selling in this world.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Food for thought... in the past I bought "high end" Mac options, be it fully specced MBP or iMac/Mac Pro (and before that Powerbook and Power Mac), because I needed the power. I can see people working in Video/Audio still do that, for me Apple closed down the ecosystem so much, I can't use Macs for "serious" work anymore.

In the past, I've used those Macs for games whenever possible. Since the Mac has become a reading/writing tool for me with a little photo/video work as a hobbyist, I can't see myself buying/needing high end Macs anymore. A simple Mac Mini or MBA seems to be more than enough for me these days when it comes to Macs. I'm not the only one. So what does it mean for gaming when people buy the "bottom end" Mac hardware? Is the difference in price enough to buy an additional gaming PC? I'm really curious how much that rumoured Mac Mini Pro will be (my guess is $2k starting price).

 

[l0stl0rd]

I am not sure if gaming on Mac will ever really happen.

The problem remind me so much of the Windows Phones.

Some were nice hardware and I liked the OS but nobody bought them because the App store sucked.

Developers did not make more apps for it as the market share was not there.

It basically makes was a vicious circle.

Thats how I see Mac gaming too.

Yes there will be more Mac overall in the future but everyone that buys them does not buy them for gaming in the first place.

Also the numbers in steam will not really change as more and more Mac games will not work.

Drop 32 bit so many games did not get upated.

Drop OpenGL same thing.

Drop Rosetta in a few years well yeah… at the moment it would leave basically nothing. And they will sooner or later.
My feeling tells me it might even be sooner than we think.
Perhaps even as soon as OSX 13

 

[dnewkirk]

I don't think it's clear how much gaming will increase on the Mac.

Pros:
1. Marketshare increasing
2. Powerful hardware
3. A more mature graphics framework in Metal

Cons:
1. Cost of recoding an engine (which, Unity aside is going to continue being an issue for many/most developers)
2. Lack of Apple engineering resources
3. Not enough relevant marketshare (depends on the style of game)
4. Easier to choose porting/adjusting an iOS app to Mac versus develop a true "Mac" game
5. Apple not throwing $$$ at gaming companies like Microsoft, etc.

Some games have embraced the m1 and are actively developing clients/engines that support it (Eve Online, WoW). Others have gone through the effort of developing native clients, but dropped all Mac support upon the apple m1 release (Anet/Guild Wars 2). Blanket statements of "this will happen because" don't work in this case because it is heavily dependent on the type of game, the financial health of the developer, and what they perceive to be the return on investment with m1 support.

If apple improves and supports metal/apple silicon going forward and allows companies to not have to retool their clients/engines every 2-3 years, then we might see and increase in games. Until then, I think assuming that gaming will somehow increase substantially is conjecture at best. Yes, there are improvements in the ecosystem, but the ball really is in Apple's court to make Mac gaming a thing. I don't know if Apple is really that invested in the idea currently. iOS? Sure. But Mac? Unclear.

 

[senttoschool]

• The M1 will be the slowest Mac chip Apple will ever make. Expect Apple Silicon chips to get much more powerful.

Now we know

 

[sunny5]

Now we know

Again, getting a powerful chip does not increase the market share. Even now, Mac's market share isn't that bigger than before. You are totally forgetting that macOS's gaming platform sucks and you still don't understand why Mac suffers AAA games and market share after using Apple Silicon chip.

 

[JMacHack]

Again, getting a powerful chip does not increase the market share. Even now, Mac's market share isn't that bigger than before. You are totally forgetting that macOS's gaming platform sucks and you still don't understand why Mac suffers AAA games and market share after using Apple Silicon chip.

“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame”

 

[diamond.g]

“No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame”

Isn't your position that no one should play games because they all suck?

 

[JMacHack]

Isn't your position that no one should play games because they all suck?

For clarity:
My position is that the core demographic of gamers are rubes and hypocrites. Seeking only to gatekeep their “hobby” and circlejerk over specs that don’t matter.

AAA games suck, and people who buy and play them deserve to lose their money.

Gaming as a hobby has become the most cancerous thing I have ever seen. Anecdotal: since swearing off vidya as an experiment my quality of life has increased drastically. I find the time to partake in other hobbies of mine that give me much more pleasure and sense of purpose than playing games ever did. (I’ve never been better at guitar, I’m actually making progress on my trucks and tractor, and learned to solder!)

Seeing how myself and my friends that have stopped playing games or severely limited our time with them (or just lost interest), I can factually say they and I have become mentally healthier and happier people.

Straight up, I’m of the opinion that games nowadays, and even older titles, are made to exploit the reward part of the brain. It’s deliberately made to keep people addicted, and constantly spending money through microtransactions, lootboxes, etc. To the point that it’s predatory.

And it confuses me that people defend these companies and this hobby that makes them miserable consumers. Nobody defends casinos, or junk food, or pharma companies that hock addiction to their own profit. Yet the games industry gets no flak, why?

Naturally, I have games that are dear to my heart. I will never forget playing Ocarina of Time with my siblings and introducing them to one of my favorite games. I will always cherish the experiences and friends I made through TF2. And I love the story and writing in games like Majora’s Mask and Bioshock.

That’s from the era of “buy once” though. When the product mattered.

Tl;dr: games do suck, stop defending them, you will thank yourself for finding other hobbies.

 

[diamond.g]

FTR: I like gaming even if the scene can be very very toxic.

 

[JMacHack]

FTR: I like gaming even if the scene can be very very toxic.

I understand and accept that, my views are radical I know.

I could write a long and nerdy essay on the state of gaming and the industry and the social implications that come from it.

 

[JouniS]

That’s from the era of “buy once” though. When the product mattered.

Tl;dr: games do suck, stop defending them, you will thank yourself for finding other hobbies.

The games you (used to) like do suck. But there are also other kinds of games.

Online multiplayer games are often toxic, especially if they are competitive or if they make playing with random strangers easy. Single-player games are nothing like that, especially when they are story-based or sandbox games. Reward mechanisms, loot boxes, etc. don't apply when the game is not about competing with strangers and beating game mechanical challenges. The "buy once" era continues, and even the worst publishers like EA now believe that such games have a future.

 

[senttoschool]

Guys, 2% of yearly AAA-capable gaming computers sold to 50%.

AAA gaming will come. Just be patient.

 

[vir]

The wonders will come.

 

[zerozoneice]

i'd like to see a cloud gaming service from Apple, with all big names (EA, Microsoft, Dice, etc.) onboard. Right now the cloud streaming market for games is like movies: some on Netflix, some on Amazon, some on Apple. We need one to rule them all and only Apple could pull something like this.

Until then, the Geforce Now rtx3080 tier will improve quality massively on Macs, due to max 1440p/1600p resolution up to 120Hz, as opposed to 1080p/60 currently.