That isn't fair, if that were true there would be no merit for MS or Sony to be buying developers like they are.
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.
So did Apple give up on gaming?
- Thread starter KatieKat1942
- Start date
-
- Tags
- business app gaming intel nvidia
- Sort by reaction score
MS and Sony already have successful gaming businesses and they have spent very long time building those up. Sure, Apple can buy some studios and throw some $$$ on some trash titles, but how will that improve gaming on the Mac? Apple Arcade is already very profitable and it does not improve Mac gaming at all, because most games on it are awful.
I think Apples principal approach is solid. They are building better software, better APIs, better tools and better education content. They are also trying to order support (although this area can and should see massive improvements). But in the end it should be developers themselves who have passion and interest in building their titles for Mac, or otherwise you get just another stillborn baby.
P.S. Mac exclusives just don’t make any sense. Now enough users. You’ll just lose money.
Why are we assuming there would be trash titles? Apple could have bought Feral Interactive or Aspyr and allowed them to continue doing ports for other developers. Along with allowing them to pursue their own IP.
Folks here keep saying Apple is going to make a console and they would need to do this anyways, right?
To offer a bit of a contrarian point of view - I think there's a bit of a chicken vs egg analogy to deal with.
When XBox first went up against PS back in the day - they bought Bungie and made some really huge investments in the name of building up that platform. XBox is still second fiddle to Sony, but there has been fruit from that investment as (all?) major games come out on XBox.
Similarly, Apple is late to the party for a "AAA gaming platform" (I'm not much of a game player) and is kind of that same situation. They'll need an investment of their own so that they shoulder a big chunk of that early risk for the "AAA gaming platform" and therefore make it more attractive to other studios.
Last edited:
Is Apple Arcade very profitable? News to me. Gaming on iOS is very profitable for apple but I’m not sure what Apple Arcade contributes to it. As mentioned before apple makes more gaming revenue then all the others combined.
Office365, Teams, Webex all work fine on my M1 Air; and probably will when I get my new MacBook Pro on Tuesday.
The difference is MS was interested in getting into gaming as a software company, Apple appears to have no interest in being a game development company.
Please excuse my ignorance. I'd like to make a home game based cost model, similar to a business model, and work things out. Basically put down the overall cost of the gear and how long it lasts, including all upgrades along the way. And offset that with the cost of the games, connections etc. And also put in a factor for time spent - which is a serious issue IMO.
I can see that downloading games via Steam looks very cheap compared to buying games although I thought people can then sell their games - you can on Sony Playstation platform.
My view was from a different environment.
Firstly, I'm 67 years old so my demographic is different to most here.
I'm open to game addiction, so I've avoided playing games on computers as much as I could. I played an early shoot 'em up famous game on a Mac CX with a rocket card to make it faster, which I did to assess what was going to go on with game play and my children. I knew that it would take a lot of my time, and for me, I saw addiction possibilities. That was when my son was 5 I think ... he's 29 now. It was a first person shoot 'em up, and became very a huge genry. So I established that my son would only have access to games that were USA age approved. And I tried to control that environment. So I bought a Playstation and a big screen but it was in the living room so game play was not secret. I think the addiction issues of game play in the young are serious for some people. The power of notebooks will hurt children who play games on their notebooks IMO.
I setup a Playstation two years ago, with a 50" TV, and bought a race seat setup, and bought Fanatec wheel and their best pedal set, and also bought a costly second wheel because I was faster with it. My pedal set had a failure and so I stop playing. Also the server was re-located to Japan rather than on a random basis, and being in Australia the lag made me less competitive racing Japanese players. My internet was not the best at that time either.
I still haven't had the warranty work carried out. But the time spent was an issue. My best qualifying time was 23rd in the world, so I became quite quick, but on average, I was typically ranked around 300 for my region, and top 1300 for the world. My issue besides my age, was that I prefer a rear bias car which has oversteer characteristics and a low polar moment so - so I prefer a twitchy unstable car - and can stabilise the mostly car using foot control. With an understeering car, or even a neutral car, I am less competitive. Now, if I had PC sim, and the racing field is much smaller there - I'd have needed to spend probably $US25,000 for a good setup. And I'd never have been good enough to encounter Verstappen eon line either, as some have.
So I played GT Sport, an on line race game, Gran Turismo, the Sony race game, Polyphony (I think). I improved my technique in several stages to become faster, in a methodological approach. I also established that to go faster, I would need a totally rigid wheel on a totally rigid race seat to wheel setup. A direct drive wheel would have made me faster too. I think though that the physical side - with high heart rates etc. and foot techniques - was very healthy for me. I also became better road driver - my concentration in critical areas was much improved (for instance, I had to tow my off road trailer/caravan 1,000 miles on a narrow road in 22 hours, due to Covid border closer announcement in my home state and I was 1,000 miles away in another State - there was Christmas traffic coming towards me with large 24 or 40 tonne trucks carrying Christmas freight to Brisbane in Australia - and it was raining a lot of the time. Three times I found these large trucks on the wrong side of the road. The sim driving skills provided a much higher level of control at those times.
So we're all different. But I found the console a lot cheaper than the alternative. The main issue for me though, is the time cost of playing any game. And for children and youth, games threaten to vacuum up life opportunities that are still open when you're growing up.
No, I get it, Microsoft did the same thing, but not as successfully, when they bought Nokia. In both cases, it wasn’t a “wouldn’t it be nice if” situation. It was “for this to work, we NEEED this”. For Xbox, they needed a big exclusive and they got it. For Windows Mobile, they needed a vendor that would commit hardware for it. In both cases, the business venture would NOT work without this purchase. (For Windows Mobile, it didn’t even work WITH the purchase.
)So, I’d say the difference here is that Microsoft needed an exclusive game for Xbox to exist. The parallel for the Mac actually may have been something more like Office, or at least at one time it was. IF Apple’s marketshare were to start dropping precipitously and it was determined that people were shunning the Mac because of some new absolutely must have game, I’ve no doubt Apple would open it’s coffers to make it happen (or like with YouTube on iOS, make their own App that’s a compatible front end for the engine). But, that’s an extreme scenario that I don’t think is likely to occur.
So why is MS still buying studios for games (especially when the games are already being made for their platform)?No, I get it, Microsoft did the same thing, but not as successfully, when they bought Nokia. In both cases, it wasn’t a “wouldn’t it be nice if” situation. It was “for this to work, we NEEED this”. For Xbox, they needed a big exclusive and they got it. For Windows Mobile, they needed a vendor that would commit hardware for it. In both cases, the business venture would NOT work without this purchase. (For Windows Mobile, it didn’t even work WITH the purchase.
So, I’d say the difference here is that Microsoft needed an exclusive game for Xbox to exist. The parallel for the Mac actually may have been something more like Office, or at least at one time it was. IF Apple’s marketshare were to start dropping precipitously and it was determined that people were shunning the Mac because of some new absolutely must have game, I’ve no doubt Apple would open it’s coffers to make it happen (or like with YouTube on iOS, make their own App that’s a compatible front end for the engine). But, that’s an extreme scenario that I don’t think is likely to occur.
Because they have a huge new business (Xbox Game Pass) that literally DEPENDS on exclusive games. Not having exclusive games means there’s no reason to pick their service over another one, so they don’t have an option to NOT buy whatever software house is available.
Similarly, Apple is continuing to buy companies as well. But, those companies have new technologies and methods that fit their view of what they want their OS and hardware offerings to be in the future. Because, that hardware and software integration is the thing that Apple needs to survive as a company. Apple does have Apple Arcade, but it’s an add-on to an already running subscription service primarily. And, the way it’s built, the only exclusives it requires are just on mobile devices. Developers can (and have) developed for Apple Arcade and subsequently released the game for Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft platforms. And Apple doesn’t have to own the companies. They set up and make Apple Arcade available and the developers come to them.
If at any time, a phrase like “Skyrim is not available for the Mac” is one that causes Apple shares to tumble and sales to fall off, then you can bet Skyrim (or whatever the game is) will eventually be available for the Mac. I state that knowing that it’s very unlikely to happen.
I agree, Apple does what Apple does best, creative products, they don't do gaming, makes me wonder why they don't have a compeditor to Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator since the iPad would be perfect for it. (I still want iWeb back)
Apple would have to care about gaming on Mac to give up on it. Unless they buy their own studio to develop Mac only games like they produce content for AppleTV+, then Mac will always be an after thought. Their focus is on certain types of games that are successful on mobile/iOS. Not the big titles like GTA5, Red Dead Redemption 2 etc.
If I can recommend one which is a “real” game (I should say closest thibg to a AAA game) and actually an apple arcade exclusive then it is Fantasian.
Great if you like old school rpgs.
FANTASIAN
Fantasian by Mistwalker Corp. — From the creator of Final Fantasy, comes the next breathtaking adventure from industry legend Hironobu Sakaguchi. Fantasian is an exciting, new RPG set against a spectacular backdrop made from nearly 160 handmade dioramas that blends physical environments and 3D...
apps.apple.com
One of Microsoft's hurdles has been convincing folks to take them seriously. I'd argue that Apple has it worse because not only have they mostly ignored Gaming for the last couple decades, the impression they've left is one that's hostile to the industry.
Microsoft is still seemingly unable to crack the Japanese market for whatever reason. And honestly, I think their biggest problem today is while they aren't rushing their first/second party devs to produce, it hasn't been consistent output, and they haven't been as adventurous as Sony has, getting to the point of creating studios whose sole purpose is to maintain an existing IP.
Honestly, my own thinking is that it’s probably not super healthy for a studio to be mired in a single IP forever (343 or Guerilla Games for example).
No, I get it, Microsoft did the same thing, but not as successfully, when they bought Nokia. In both cases, it wasn’t a “wouldn’t it be nice if” situation. It was “for this to work, we NEEED this”. For Xbox, they needed a big exclusive and they got it. For Windows Mobile, they needed a vendor that would commit hardware for it. In both cases, the business venture would NOT work without this purchase. (For Windows Mobile, it didn’t even work WITH the purchase.
I actually disagree here, the buying of Nokia’s hardware teams were unrelated to the things that had to happen for Windows Phone to succeed in the market. That was more of a hedge.
In my view, the failure of the platform related more to the development platform. The decision to use Silverlight, ship controls that didn’t scale to real world apps (whoopsie), block any sort of sharable code (no C, no JS, nothing), and then wonder why nobody wanted to develop for the #3 platform clawing for any sort of marketshare absolutely crippled the ability to attract any of those third party apps required for a healthy ecosystem.
I’ll admit I don’t know a lot about everything that was going on with Microsoft at the time, but from the outside it looked like “We can’t get anyone to commit to make hardware over several years, so we’re going to have to purchase a handset maker because what we’re making is not compelling enough for anyone to commit to long term.” They were able to get a few vendors to produce a small number of devices (15, dwarfed by competing Android device commitment) over a couple years and, if buying Nokia was meant to be a hedge, it wasn’t a very good one because they collapsed anyway. I’d guess that WITH the purchase of Nokia, that helped them go for two years. Without buying Nokia, the other hardware vendors would have looked at their sales vs Android and moved on after 1.
I think the point can still be made, though, that one does not normally start down the path of making an OS that’s meant to run on many different devices by producing your own device. It’s admitting right from the start that “it’s not good enough to drive folks to adopt.” The first Android device was in 2008, Google didn’t release an Android device until 2016.
It has nothing to do with money. I can easily buy a Mac for 2.000€ and a 600€ Xbox one series X and a 600€ ps5.
I’m still unable to play games on my extremely expensive one task Mac.
Or I buy a 2.000€ Pc where I can do both work and have fun. It would be insane to buy two different stationary computer for 4.000€
Lol, I guess professionals aren’t allowed to have fun.
Not related to what I said. Even developers who don’t care about IAP will never have arcade releases on the Mac when they can sell it somewhere else and make more money for a wider audience
That is a very backward way of seeing it and you will just kill your market.
Mac exclusives makes a lot of sense if you want people to be interested in the product.
Microsoft had HALO( fun fact it was supposed to launch on Mac) when they bought bungi. As a selling point. Sony have God of war/killzone etc.
Developers don’t give an F about Mac. Passion and love don’t pay the bills. Apple would need to pay developers and support them untill they are large enough to support themselves.
By the time Nokia was being purchased, there were 3 years of devices in the market, and failure to court any large developers while both Apple and Google were charging ahead with their app ecosystems that were 2 years more mature.
There was a definite niche (outside the US) that was doing well, but there wasn't going to be any upwards momentum on that alone when not even big players that want to be everywhere like Facebook or Netflix wanted anything to do with the platform.
Not a disagreement there. But things were already on the downward trajectory by the time Microsoft was producing their own devices under the Lumia brand. That's why I called it a hedge. It was a hedge against the other manufacturers abandoning the platform.
I'm surprised no one is making the case that there is a real game changer (sorry) here: a platform capable of very high performance without needing to be plugged in.
All AAA etc gamers today are hooked up with machines tethered to the socket. They may be used to it, because there was no alternative.
They currently have no alternative either, because the publishers have hardly bothered to write to the MacOS so far, but won't any of the publishers figure it may be worth testing this new possibility? Is there really no market for untethered AAA gaming?
All AAA etc gamers today are hooked up with machines tethered to the socket. They may be used to it, because there was no alternative.
They currently have no alternative either, because the publishers have hardly bothered to write to the MacOS so far, but won't any of the publishers figure it may be worth testing this new possibility? Is there really no market for untethered AAA gaming?
Last edited:
Sooooo, you DO know that ALL Apple Arcade releases that are not of the “PLUS (mobile only)” variety already run on the Mac, right? So there are MANY developers already releasing Mac games on Apple Arcade. Additionally,they can ABSOLUTELY sell it somewhere else AND make more money on a wider PC or console audience, there’s several Apple Arcade titles that already do. They’re only limited in that they can’t produce it for Android. Which, is not a big loss because Android purchasers apparently don’t want to pay for games anyway.