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

[senttoschool]

Those people who do have supplementary gaming systems might prefer to consolidate devices or simply like to be able to game on their Macs as well.

I'm in this category. I have to use my Mac for work and I have a desktop at home for some occasional gaming. I wish I could get rid of my gaming computer. I hate having two computers. I don't need to play games at 4k ultra settings. Just 1080p with low settings is fine by me.

I can't wait for the 2021 16" Macbook Pro. It should be powerful enough to play most AAA games on medium to high settings. For games that haven't been ported to MacOS, I will use something like Geforce Now or Stadia in the mean time. I will finally be able to get rid of my gaming PC.

 

[jeanlain]

Apple's platform is !@#%tty in FPS due to mouse control problem.

Could you develop? I've played some FPS on macOS (hl2, bioshock and such), and I haven't noticed a difference with Windows when it comes to mouse control.

 

[jeanlain]

You're in the 0.0001% of gamers that own a 3090. The vast majority own a 1050ti or 1060 level GPU. Also, you don't need a 3090 to run WoW. M1 runs it fine.

No one expects an entry-level Apple Silicon to run the latest Call of Duty at 4k high settings. No. But we can expect it to run at 1080p at low settings while you're traveling with your thin and light Macbook. That's the point.

Macs being "good enough" for AAA games will certainly help. Still, how M1 Macs perform in games is hardly discussed in the PC space, probably because the M1 is slower than the majority of current discrete GPUs (and also because of the lack of games). By comparison the M1 CPU performance is discussed at length on PC forums because it's among the best (single thread). I know that forum members do not represent the majority of consumers, but they may represent hardcore gamers quite well. Those that are willing to spend thousands on a gaming rig.

My point is, if Apple releases a GPU that's faster than anything else out there, and which can play a key game (say Cyberpunk) better than any PC, this will get noticed. This wouldn't cost much to Apple as they're already developing huge GPUs for Mac Pros (and a Mac Pro "medium" may be in the work). They're likely working on RT hardware, and may even be developing multiple GPU setups that actually work for real time rendering, as processing separate parts of an image by different GPUs is made possible by the TBDR design. Apple would "only" have to partner with certain developers to port and optimise their games for Metal (like they do with OTOY for Octane).
The most expensive Macs being simply the best machines to play certain games may have more effect on the AAA gaming community/industry than the vast majority low-end Macs being able to play AAA games at low settings.

 

[EntropyQ3]

Macs being "good enough" for AAA games will certainly help. Still, how M1 Macs perform in games is hardly discussed in the PC space, probably because the M1 is slower than the majority of current discrete GPUs (and also because of the lack of games). By comparison the M1 CPU performance is discussed at length on PC forums because it's among the best (single thread). I know that forum members do not represent the majority of consumers, but they may represent hardcore gamers quite well. Those that are willing to spend thousands on a gaming rig.

You have to separate "PC-tech enthusiasts" and "gamers". (And arguably "gamers" from "people who plays games".)
The two are often conflated, and while there is a certain overlap, their justifications for spending money are different.

The category you are talking about are the hardcore PC shoppers. Whether Apple can attract them has little to do with AAA gaming, as gaming is mostly an excuse to buy cool new PC components. (Apple is actually attractive to some in this category now for novelty reasons, as an AS Mac can be classified as a cool new tech gadget.)

I’d contend that the "PC-tech shopper" niche, while reasonably affluent, isn’t a demographic that Apple should chase. Their priorities just don’t align very well with Apples aim of providing complete solutions with a focus on utility and good ergonomics.

However, "people who play games on their computers" is a much wider demographic, and is actually the important one to game publishers and arguably Apple. (Well, actually "people who buy games for their computers" are who matters for games publishers.) The tech nerdery that goes on at tech nerd forums is irrelevant to the issue. And I say that as a tech nerd with a beefy gaming PC, occasionally posting on tech nerd forums.

 

[leman]

So if you're a PC gamer who plays AAA games, has $1000 to spend, and is in the market for a new laptop, it seems unlikely you'd buy and Air or base 13" MBP, given that you'd get a smaller screen, and a GPU that is half as capable, vs. what your $1k would buy you in the PC world. Plus you'd have to switch from an OS with which you are familiar. [The exception would be a PC gamer who's decided to switch to Mac for other (non-gaming) reasons.]

You'll get no argument from me here. As I mentioned before, I don't think that the average gamer will actively go and buy a Mac for gaming any time soon. But Apple Silicon opens new possibilities. If you have previously bought a MacBook Air (for study or work), playing games on it was pretty much out of the question. Same pretty much for the 13" MBP (it could run games like Civilization series, at reduced settings, but not much more).

Now where every MacBook Air essentially comes with a performance promise of a mainstream gaming laptop, it opens up a lot of possibilities. If you were a Mac user interested in gaming but unable to play games because of weak Mac GPUs, well, things have changed. If you are a Windows user on a budget who is interested in Macs (for productivity, development or study) but were holding out because of weak Mac GPUs, well, things have changed too. Even more, in the Windows world you still have to make a choice what you get for your $1000 — a budget gaming laptop (with bad screen, bad keyboard and bad battery) or a budget "office" laptop (better battery, more portable, better for work). Apple Silicon makes this choice pretty much trivial, since there is no choice to make. You don't have to sacrifice anything. A MacBook Air can do it all, pretty much.

We can discuss the reasons why there are no more games on Mac all day long, but in the end it pretty much boils down to performance. Porting can be either a trivial or a non-trivial effort (depending on how sane your software architecture is), but why would you bother to ever port your game if an average Mac user with only get a 10fps slideshow, with major stutters due to crappy drivers? Having fast GPUs and reliable performance is extremely important, and there will be more high-quality Mac game ports. I am optimistic.

 

[jeanlain]

The category you are talking about are the hardcore PC shoppers. Whether Apple can attract them has little to do with AAA gaming, as gaming is mostly an excuse to buy cool new PC components.

I agree that the number of hardcore gamers buying a Mac just to get the best performance will be vanishingly small. I'm talking about a halo effect.
M1 Macs may make a few game developers and publisher raise an eyebrow, but I'm not even sure they do. A Mac that beats a PC with an RTX 3090 using 1/3 of the power (I believe Apple can pull this off), that might be something else, even if almost no gamer could afford it.
I'm not saying that Apple shoud invest in the hardcore gamer segment. We know they're developing top-end GPUs for 3D artists. These GPUs will also be very good for games.
Apple just needs to have more game engines optimised for Metal. They may be partnering with games developers as we speak, as I'm not dismissing the possibility of a gaming-oriented AppleTV. If Apple doesn't release anything major next year, we'll know that the prospect of using their own SoCs hasn't changed their stance toward "serious" gaming, which I think would be a missed opportunity.

And as we said before, in the end it all depends on decisions made by people. Apple can reach a game developer to offer their assistance and even some money, and the answer the get could be "Not interested. Macs suck. They're no good for gaming". It may change the opinion of people if Apple could say "See that Cyberpunk 2077 game which we helped port to Metal? Our best AIO can run it better than a gaming PC that needs to be water cooled so that it doens't sound like a jet engine. What about your game?".

 

[EntropyQ3]

M1 Macs may make a few game developers and publisher raise an eyebrow, but I'm not even sure they do. A Mac that beats a PC with an RTX 3090 using 1/3 of the power (I believe Apple can pull this off), that might be something else, even if almost no gamer could afford it.

Honestly, Apples high-end stuff hardly encourage game developers. The traffic on forums mostly revolve around how $999 monitor stands and $699 cabinet wheels confirm that Mac users are rich idiots.

Luckily, I think developers and publishers are more impressed by very large volumes of quite capable hardware shipped to people that are obviously affluent enough to pay for their games.

 

[senttoschool]

Luckily, I think developers and publishers are more impressed by very large volumes of quite capable hardware shipped to people that are obviously affluent enough to pay for their games.

This basically summed up my original post.

I can't believe people are having a hard time understanding. 50% is 50%. No AAA developer is going to give that up. Developers will port the game to Adobe Flash if they can add 50% more users, especially wealthy users. Ok, maybe not Flash but you get the point.

It has nothing to do with hardcore gamers, RTX 3090, halo effect, Metal, DirectX, or whatever. Developers go where there are potential users. That's the bottom line.

And don't forget that Mac users are probably much less likely to pirate their games.

Most gamers are probably like myself - want to play a few AAA games but don't care about playing at 4K with Ray Tracing. The data shows it too. Gaming laptops are far more popular than gaming desktops. The most common GPUs are at the level of a 1050ti. The 0.001% of those hardcore gamers with an RTX 3090 will never switch to Apple regardless. Most of them enjoy fiddling around hardware and running benchmarks than play actual games. Apple doesn't need to target them.

 

[Mcdevidr]

Honestly, Apples high-end stuff hardly encourage game developers. The traffic on forums mostly revolve around how $999 monitor stands and $699 cabinet wheels confirm that Mac users are rich idiots.

Luckily, I think developers and publishers are more impressed by very large volumes of quite capable hardware shipped to people that are obviously affluent enough to pay for their games.

And people spending $1500 on a 3090 for Minecraft are the sages of the financial world?

 

[JouniS]

Most gamers are probably like myself - want to play a few AAA games but don't care about playing at 4K with Ray Tracing. The data shows it too. Gaming laptops are far more popular than gaming desktops. The most common GPUs are at the level of a 1050ti. The 0.001% of those hardcore gamers with an RTX 3090 will never switch to Apple regardless. Most of them enjoy fiddling around hardware and running benchmarks than play actual games. Apple doesn't need to target them.

High-end GPUs often go to older gamers who have been playing video games for decades. For an established person with good job, gaming is not a particularly expensive hobby. Even if you don't have much time to play, you may want to have a high-end gaming PC with VR/flight simulator/whatever gear to make those limited hours more enjoyable. And then you may have a Mac for other purposes.

Some of the demand comes from VR gaming. The GPU has to drive two displays instead of one, expected frame rates are higher (usually 90+ fps), and the effects of unstable frame rate can be very unpleasant.

 

[ipponrg]

High-end GPUs often go to older gamers who have been playing video games for decades. For an established person with good job, gaming is not a particularly expensive hobby. Even if you don't have much time to play, you may want to have a high-end gaming PC with VR/flight simulator/whatever gear to make those limited hours more enjoyable. And then you may have a Mac for other purposes.

I fit into this boat. I have a GTX1080 for several years now on my PC, but I also own several MBPs for coding purposes. $400 for a video card that is guaranteed to last several years (i.e run at medium settings and above) is not an issue.

And don't forget that Mac users are probably much less likely to pirate their games.

This is only because Mac is not a popular gaming platform. Release groups primarily put out efforts for platforms that have an audience.

Developers go where there are potential users. That's the bottom line.

The same was said when Apple went x86. And here we are again. Time will tell.

 

[diamond.g]

Bottom line is we will see these AAA games on macOS, when (if) we see them.

I still kind of think that the iOS mobile games will be more common on macOS than PC/console games.

 

[Ethosik]

Yes they are.

Name some. I have only seen popular games only at 4K 30 or 60 if you are lucky. 1080p at 120fps is common though.

 

[diamond.g]

Name some. I have only seen popular games only at 4K 30 or 60 if you are lucky. 1080p at 120fps is common though.

DRS muddies a lot too.

 

[Ethosik]

I run 3090

Good for you. I am running a 1080 non Ti in my gaming computer since the 20 series was not a big improvement other than ray tracing on just a couple of titles. I tried to get ANY of the 3070, 3080 or 3090 but it is impossible unless I want to pay scalpers $2,000+ for it. Not a lot of people have the new graphics cards and it will be idiotic of me to get the 2080 Ti for $1,500 or so when the 3080 beats it for half the price.

 

[Ethosik]

DRS muddies a lot too.

Is that AMDs version of NVIDIAs DLSS? Then yeah, its not native 4K which even the 3080 has problems with but DLSS 4K works well.

 

[diamond.g]

Is that AMDs version of NVIDIAs DLSS? Then yeah, its not native 4K which even the 3080 has problems with but DLSS 4K works well.

Dynamic Resolution Scaling. That is what console use (last gen for sure) for getting decent performance at higher resolutions. The XSX and PS5 currently use it as well, but that is because most of the games are ports from last gen.

So far no PC game actually uses this method of keeping performance consistent. I don't think Apple has an equivalent either.

 

[Ethosik]

Dynamic Resolution Scaling. That is what console use (last gen for sure) for getting decent performance at higher resolutions. The XSX and PS5 currently use it as well, but that is because most of the games are ports from last gen.

So far no PC game actually uses this method of keeping performance consistent. I don't think Apple has an equivalent either.

Not only that of course old games or 2D games like Ori and the Will of the Wisps run better. I can get some very old games to run at 5K resolution on my iMac but newer titles still cause an RTX 3080 to not stay consistent at 60FPS at 4K. And really the current gen systems do not have a lot of new titles out, so its not fair to say a 3-5 year game, or a 2D game can run at 4K so the system does 4K no problem.

 

[theorist9]

You'll get no argument from me here. As I mentioned before, I don't think that the average gamer will actively go and buy a Mac for gaming any time soon. But Apple Silicon opens new possibilities. If you have previously bought a MacBook Air (for study or work), playing games on it was pretty much out of the question. Same pretty much for the 13" MBP (it could run games like Civilization series, at reduced settings, but not much more).

Now where every MacBook Air essentially comes with a performance promise of a mainstream gaming laptop, it opens up a lot of possibilities. If you were a Mac user interested in gaming but unable to play games because of weak Mac GPUs, well, things have changed. If you are a Windows user on a budget who is interested in Macs (for productivity, development or study) but were holding out because of weak Mac GPUs, well, things have changed too. Even more, in the Windows world you still have to make a choice what you get for your $1000 — a budget gaming laptop (with bad screen, bad keyboard and bad battery) or a budget "office" laptop (better battery, more portable, better for work). Apple Silicon makes this choice pretty much trivial, since there is no choice to make. You don't have to sacrifice anything. A MacBook Air can do it all, pretty much.

We can discuss the reasons why there are no more games on Mac all day long, but in the end it pretty much boils down to performance. Porting can be either a trivial or a non-trivial effort (depending on how sane your software architecture is), but why would you bother to ever port your game if an average Mac user with only get a 10fps slideshow, with major stutters due to crappy drivers? Having fast GPUs and reliable performance is extremely important, and there will be more high-quality Mac game ports. I am optimistic.

The interesting thing for me is that the M1 allows Apple to beat comparably-priced PCs on value when it comes to CPU performance, but not on GPU performance (at least not yet).

Specifically, with the $1000 MBA, Apple has, for the first time, a laptop that is actually a value proposition. Compared to $1000 PC laptops, the Air equals or exceeds them in most categories: Build quality, display, trackpad, keyboard, battery life, SSD speed, and CPU speed. The only areas where 13" PC laptops can outspec the Air for the same money are: Number of ports; SSD size; RAM size; and (if they don't have iGPU's) GPU performance. And those that have the better GPUs are obviously more cheaply made overall.

 

[EntropyQ3]

This basically summed up my original post.

I can't believe people are having a hard time understanding. 50% is 50%. No AAA developer is going to give that up. Developers will port the game to Adobe Flash if they can add 50% more users, especially wealthy users. Ok, maybe not Flash but you get the point.

It has nothing to do with hardcore gamers, RTX 3090, halo effect, Metal, DirectX, or whatever. Developers go where there are potential users. That's the bottom line.

And don't forget that Mac users are probably much less likely to pirate their games.

Most gamers are probably like myself - want to play a few AAA games but don't care about playing at 4K with Ray Tracing. The data shows it too. Gaming laptops are far more popular than gaming desktops. The most common GPUs are at the level of a 1050ti. The 0.001% of those hardcore gamers with an RTX 3090 will never switch to Apple regardless. Most of them enjoy fiddling around hardware and running benchmarks than play actual games. Apple doesn't need to target them.

While we agree on some things, I don’t share your assessment of how the AAA publishers will regard the Mac market. The kind of high budget titles we are talking about target consoles, and add PCs to scoop up additional sales. And that’s not only, or even mainly, about hardware capabilities. It’s because there is an audience for those titles on those platforms.
So even if Macs have taken a leap in base line graphics capabilities (and overall performance), and their market share look likely to pick up - does that mean that spending the resources to produce a version of the Frostbite engine that targets Apple GPUs and start releasing titles with MacOS as one of the supported platforms will make sense for EA?

I actually believe it might, but EA beancounters may not agree and to be honest their market numbers are better than mine. It would have to be a concious effort to build an audience on a growing platform. Also, for some titles it could allow them to simultaneously adress the iOS market, with a billion victims just waiting for exploitation.

The Nintendo Switch market is a good example. It took time before the success of the platform was apparent, and while the absence of the big dragons may have cost Nintendo some sales initially, the space that opened up for smaller publishers created great opportunities. At the end of the day, the absence of the big third party hits may not actually have cost Nintendo anything, as it made their offering more distinct in terms of flavour. And third parties there enjoy a platform with less high profile competition. The ones who miss out on revenue are the big AAA publishers.

I can easily see the same thing happening under MacOS(+iOS). The market and money will be there, the question is just who will make the most compelling offerings and pick that money up. Personally, I expect most of the gaming revenue to be picked up by ambitious iOS developers, joined by some titles that cater to the classic MacOS audience. I expect Baldurs Gate 3 to do quite well, for instance. But I would likewise be surprised to see Assassins Creed 23, Battlefield 6, and so on show up. On the whole, this may actually make the games scene under MacOS less of an ugly duckling me-too market, and more unique and interesting.

 

[senttoschool]

While we agree on some things, I don’t share your assessment of how the AAA publishers will regard the Mac market. The kind of high budget titles we are talking about target consoles, and add PCs to scoop up additional sales. And that’s not only, or even mainly, about hardware capabilities. It’s because there is an audience for those titles on those platforms.
So even if Macs have taken a leap in base line graphics capabilities (and overall performance), and their market share look likely to pick up - does that mean that spending the resources to produce a version of the Frostbite engine that targets Apple GPUs and start releasing titles with MacOS as one of the supported platforms will make sense for EA?

At the end of the day, it's all about financials for AAA developers. Gone are the days of exclusives in the days of PS2/Xbox. Only Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo first-party studios make exclusives nowadays.

No one on these forums know exactly how much of an opportunity it is for AAA developers if 50% of all gaming computers sold each year are Macs. We don't have access to survey data.

However, games like Fornite, CS:GO, WoW, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, HoTS, Tomb Raider, Batman Arkham City were ported over to MacOS despite the fact only ~20% of Macs could run them well and Bootcamp existed. This shows you there is clearly a sizable Mac audience interested in AAA games - even during the crappy Intel iGPU era.

Now imagine if Macs increased market share by 100% within 3 years like what Ming-Chi Kuo predicts, and every Mac can run AAA games.

Also, for certain AAA games, developers might be able to scale down to newer iPhones and iPads if they develop a MacOS version. That's 3 birds with 1 stone, or 4 birds with 1 stone if Apple decides to make a console or put an M chip into Apple TV.

The economics heavily favor AAA games on Apple's MacOS.

PS. I agree that the first companies to capitalize on MacOS will be mobile developers scaling their games up.

 

[jeanlain]

Honestly, Apples high-end stuff hardly encourage game developers. The traffic on forums mostly revolve around how $999 monitor stands and $699 cabinet wheels confirm that Mac users are rich idiots.

A $999 fan-less MacBook Air that beats high-end PCs at single threaded-tasks does make Mac users look like rich idiots. I think many PC users are looking in our direction, but they don't consider M1 Macs as a viable alternative for games since their GPU is still weaker than most dGPUs.

 

[FlyingTexan]

Never understood why apple didn’t just make a strong GPU based system. Take the m1x and slap a 6800xt on it and let the public sort the rest out. I’d buy it. I have a windows machine now for gaming I’d love to ditch and I hand built it!

 

[diamond.g]

Never understood why apple didn’t just make a strong GPU based system. Take the m1x and slap a 6800xt on it and let the public sort the rest out. I’d buy it. I have a windows machine now for gaming I’d love to ditch and I hand built it!

That isn't their way.

 

[FlyingTexan]

I paid $325Cdn last year for a new Lenovo Ideapad with a ryzen 2500 and vega 8 with a 15 inch 1080p native display 16gig of ram an 512gig SSD. The Air cost nearly 4x that... As I said the Apple tax is real.

It’s not a tax it’s R&D plus quality. I paid $2k for a 14” i7 Thinkpad x1 carbon that I just sold on eBay for $900 and put that towards my M1A that has better performance, better speakers, better aspect ratio for me, and a battery that last 4 times longer.

the thinkpad had better durability but that’s about the only thing I liked more.