Not really true because all those games, Metro games, Borderlands games and Bioshock games were ported to Mac before Switch. The Switch ports were released this and last year. Metro Exodus and BL3 are not even on Switch but on Mac.
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.
The final blow for real gaming on the Mac, or the beginning of a new era?
- Thread starter Frankied22
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right, it's a mechanism to sustain/increase market share, but not __specifically__ in the gaming space. If someone is shopping a home computer, a machine for school, a "dual use" machine (like work _and_ home, i.e., how I use mine) they might be a little more incentivized to get a Mac if - in addition to all the other tasks it does really well - it also could provide a decent gaming experience.
It's Business 101.
Side note: I realized I had this response in the queue, never posted, so it's fallen a few pages behind relevance-wise, but, better late than never I suppose
Hmm could be the reverse situation then where the work to make something port friendly was done a long time ago for the Mac and brought to the Switch.
The market share and the money is in console games. That’s why all the AAA games are released there first.
As pointed out some three years ago there is (or as least was) a good reason for that:
"Both are still young although Metal was released in 2014 and Vulkan was officially released in 2016, so they do overlap in certain features, the benefits for Metal 2 was performance and API make it easier for partners and developers to write than in Vulkan, Vulkan developers share their experiences that Vulkan is hard and yes, fragmentation probably make it more complicated since some features is not available for older devices" - Vulkan vs Metal 2 (Reedit)
Basically not only was Vulkan two years late to the party but only year after it came out Apple was to Metal 2. Then Apple came out with Metal 3 June 2019. And where is Vulkan now? Puttering around at Version 1.2 and, odds are, still royal PITA to use.
A comment 4 years ago on Apple's developer forums, Vulkan and Metal (some observations), said this:
"Metal still does a lot of hand holding and behind-the-scenes management for you, while with Vulkan you are responsible for — literally — everything. And man they were NOT kidding when they said that the API is explicit. Its actually quite ridiculous how diffficult and detailed the API is. (...)
The explicit nature of Vulkan might offer additional optimisation opportinuties to applications seeking to squeeze those 100% out of the hardware, but at the extreme expense of usability. Metal is a more casual API, which is very convenient to use and still offers very good performance (and performance guarantees) that will satisfy an overwhelming majority of applications, both for graphics and compute. With some extensions, it will basically have feature parity with Vulkan, and it can easily borrow some of Vulkan's optimisations without sacrifising ease of use (e.g. batched binding updates, reusable command buffers as well as synchronisation primitives). And let's be honest here — applications that really need explicit control like Vulkan provides are high-end game titles, which are not targeted at the Apple platform anyway (because they require really beefy GPUs, which Apple simply does not ship in their machines).(...)
I think Apple might have lost the initial interest in Vulkan after they saw what it was shaping up to become. They were interested in having a convenient and efficient replacement for the difficult to maintain and erratic OpenGL. Vulkan is certainly efficient but I wouldn't call it 'convenient'. Its not an API that would draw developers (especially small-time developers) away from using OpenGL or encourage them to make more titles for OS X. "
Elsewhere there was this: " Plus people need to remember DX12 and Vulkan offer CPU performance boost, major GPU boost is not on the table." Metal, by contrast is aimed at the GPU. This is the other reason Apple went with Metal rather then Vulkan: why would you use a graphical API you have to fight with to use the GPU because it wants to be Captain Clueless and use the CPU by default?!
As for MoltenVK: "MoltenVK has picked up support for a number of new Vulkan extensions and other fixes, but now does require Apple Metal 3.0 A Metal 3.0 requirement means using Xcode 11 for building and targeting macOS 10.15+ and iOS 13+ for the run-time requirement. MoltenVK still supports their earlier v1.0.36 release without Metal 3.0 for those wanting the older iOS/macOS coverage" (MoltenVK Now Supports More Vulkan Extensions, Begins Targeting Metal 3.0)
Last edited:
That is a very simplistic way to look at things. Apple and Vulkan use different versioning schemes. Apple is bumping the major version every single time they introduce a small change. Vulkan has gained a lot of functionality in it's minor version changes.
Metal can be essentially as low-level as Vulkan when opted-in (some differences obviously apply). Metal is not more "casual", it simply comes with the option of doing some of the trickier bookkeeping for you. But you can turn that off.
On the other hand, when used on Apple hardware, Metal offers many more opportunities for optimizations, since it exposes some of the unique features of Apple GPUs.
This doesn't make any sense. Vulkan doesn't "use CPU by default". I think you misunderstand how these APIs work. An API is always a translation layer, since you have to abstract some of the hardware details. You are encoding what you want to do using an abstract GPU model and the driver then translates these things to something the real GPU can actually work with.Main problem with older APIs (OpenGL, DX11 etc.) was that they way how they exposed the GPU to the programmer was not necessarily indicative of how GPUs actually worked. As a consequence, the driver had to spend a lot of work synchronizing states and tracing resources and the performance was not predictable — you could for example use a simple API call to change a minor shading parameter, but it would actually cause the entire GPU shading pipeline to be rebuilt. Writing high-performance software under these conditions became frustrating and very difficult, especially with GPUs getting faster and faster.
New APIs — Vulkan, DX12, Metal — are explicitly designed to be, well, "close to metal" — they require less driver overhead and they offer predictable performance: the API makes it clear which things are "fast" and which are "slow". These things reduce CPU utilization and help with GPU utilization, which is why they "offer a CPU performance boost". What this means is that they won't make the GPU run faster per se. But they will allow you to program the GPU more efficiently, reducing stalls and getting out more performance out of your GPU.
Actually - no.
Software revenue for mobile platforms (as opposed to gaming related revenue, which includes the cost of hardware) is greater than for consoles and PCs together, and iOS has the major part of the mobile game revenue.
The AAA production is by a handful of publishers that have a close relationship with Sony and Microsoft, and have cultivated an audience on those platforms.
It’s quite common that people who enjoy PC or console gaming dismiss mobile games, but there is no doubt which market generates the most revenue now, and the trend in favour of mobile gaming shows no sign of abating.
I have mixed feelings on this as I hate the monetization schemes in many/most mobile games, and how they shape the game play. But money talks. What this means for the future is anybodys guess.
Mobile games will migrate to MacOS, but I hope that they will scale to the more capable hardware. I also hope that the upcoming AS Macs will be attractive enough that MacOS market share grows, which in combination with lack of Boot Camp will grow the number of game consumers enough that porting games will be a financially more attractive proposition for publishers. Helped by generally higher graphics performance for all Macs.
I would be a fool to take this for granted, but the potential is there.
This is a good and valid point. But we are not discussing mobile gaming here. We are talking about Mac gaming, therefore we are talking about console and PC gaming. Those 3 are one category in my mind. Mobile gaming is another category. *shrug*
I agree with your sentiment. Would like to point out how iOS gaming is dominant, yet some genre's of games are still under represented on iOS. Not sure how adding Macs to the mix will fix that.
I remain skeptical here. I would not want to play mobile games on my Mac. I don’t think MacOS would grow because of AS. In fact x86 should have grown it. I think Apple has a lot of work to do in social and behavioral perspectives to make Macs more attractive as a gaming platform
I think this is a good point. Nobody in the early 1990s knew how graphics cards were eventually going to standardize as variations on a basic architectural theme. Although you could argue that TBDR is a different enough pattern from IM that it takes a big API to effectively handle both, and that's what necessitates Metal -- at the cost of even the possibility of a good cross-platform standard without third-party tools like MoltenVK.
Unity and Unreal 4 both use Metal, but it seems a real pity if *that* has to be how high up the software stack you have to go to get cross-platform graphics capabilities.
Edit: the deprecation of OpenGL is a particular problem in the sciences, I think, with legacy software paid for by research grant X back in the year Y cobbled together by a grad student who graduated in year Z and which depends on OpenGL for graphics capabilities.
The reason why games never took off on the Mac is mostly due to the lack of a decent GPU. We're assuming Apple Silicon will change that. Hopefully Apple can add more GPU cores or beef up the performance to match high end desktop GPU's. With iOS games being able to run on Apple Silicon Macs, it certainly does make it more interesting. Especially if Apple can convince developers to make AAA title games for both iOS and Mac. Apple is certainly making it easier to develop for both.
OpenGL is being deprecated but is still available on Big Sur. It just won't be updated.
OpenGL is being deprecated but is still available on Big Sur. It just won't be updated.
But with AS, like it or not, mobile will be part of Mac gaming
As I mentioned before the main reasons that x86 is so many propriority genre engines were built around Windows API as much as PC hardware. Look at the effort needed to get Sim 3 to Metal and realize the only reason that is even happening is that Sims 3 is still a major money spinner on the Mac.
This is why Apple let OpenGL languish - for what they had planned it was just too old. Also Apple went with Matal because per comments on the developer forums it was a lot easier to use and if you are trying to get people on a platform that at best only has 10% marketshare you want things as simple as possible.
It wasn't just there weren't a lack of a decent GPU but the one Mac where you could put a decent GPU in, the Mac Pro, didn't have drivers that worked with the MacOS.
OpenGL has been a zombie API on the Mac for a long time as the Mac version is several versions behind the general spec.
Last edited:
It's worse than that actually. It didn't take long to realize that the fundamental design of OpenGL didn't scale with high-performance GPUs. OpenGL was supposed to get a modern overhaul around 2006-2007, but then politics happened and we got lukewarm *** that was OpenGL 3.0 instead of a modern future-proof API. I still remember how bitter the OpenGL programming community was about that plot twist. Combine that with the stance of some vendors "we don't need a new API, just use our proprietary NV_* OpenGL extensions!" and the rest is history.
I would put this down as politics as well. There was nothing preventing Apple from using Vulkan and introducing their own TBDR-specific extensions. Apple decided to make their own API because a) they wanted something that was very user friendly (which Vulkan is definitely not), b) they wanted something that they can control and c) they wanted to be "different".
In the end, Metal is a really great API, its very easy to pick up and understand, and it is essentially as powerful as other alternatives. It's a shame that Apple's documentation is awful and the support is almost non-existent.
The funny thing: Apple originally was part of the Vulkan design group. But they quickly left after they released that everyone else wanted this awkward, expert-only API.
To be honest, there are advantages to this model well. It might sound counter-intuitive, but there is a certain simplicity in having GPU-specific APIs and libraries on top of them. This way you can target the level that makes most sense to you. Want best performance? Use the low-level GPU-specific stuff. Don't need that much performance and rather have convenience? Use a higher-level library.
This can work, provided that vendors agree on a common set of tools. SPIR-V is a great facilitator for example. It's really a shame that Apple does not let Metal shaders to be compiled to it.
I don't really think there is a problem. I am quite sure OpenGL will stick around as a deprecated library for the foreseeable future. By now Apple surely has a wrapper on top of Metal which just works. And if at some point they decide to remove it, community will quickly deliver a wrapper.
I am not sure that I agree. Mobile gaming requires a different UI and control paradigm. The best mobile games understand this and use it to their advantage (touch, less screen space, advanced features such as accelerometer). A Mac has none of these things, so how is mobile gaming going to be adopted on a Mac. Unless you are suggesting that developers will now be more encouraged to create the exact same game, which has to be comprised in every way to run on both platforms seamlessly.
If mobile will be part of Mac gaming, then the answer to the OP's question is simple: yes, it is the end of real gaming on the Mac. I am not trying to start an elitist computer vs mobile gaming thing here, but I just don't see how allow mobile games on the Mac will help the Mac in terms of getting more developer support for the games that we have been discussing.
It is not a question if mobile will be a part of Mac gaming. It will be. What that means is the real question, and can only be speculated about. But quality speculation can be fun and even educational. Closing ones eye to the size of mobile in the overall gaming market just creates a foundation for misconceptions and flawed conclusions. It's akin to graphics enthusiasts arguing endlessly over minuscule differences between XBsx and PS5 as if they will determine market success, preferring to close their eyes to the fact that Nintendo Switch is the currently best selling console.
(Not all in the thread equates "real gaming" with EA/Activision/Ubisoft/... AAA titles. As I stated previously, those publishers have long standing relationships with platform holders, and have built audiences there. Plus of course the titles produced by the studios owned by the platform holders as well. Anyone who wants the fullest possible coverage of this gaming niche, should of course get platforms that has catered to them (or even been created for them) for decades now.)
As has been said, for MacOS users the question is rather if AS Macs will change the landscape for gaming entertainment vs. the current situation, and clearly it will. AS Macs will both herald an influx of iOS gaming titles, and create better odds for a good ROI on Mac versions of classic PC/console titles. The demographic of future Mac users, and towards what forms of games their spending will gravitate is unknown.
Also, the games themselves may evolve, I think we will see more Genshin Impact type titles in the future - games that are playable on computers and mobile both, allowing players to move between platforms seamlessly, and play on whatever platform they prefer or have available. Apple Silicon MacOS and iOS really invites this. When it comes to gaming Sturgeons law definitely applies, but among the shovel-ware, gems will be found. And who knows, once such titles generate enough revenue, the old publishers may steer their resources that way as well, bringing joy to those who crave their products. I can't wait for Anthem 2. (*cough*)
PS: You have a good point in control schemes and overall game design not necessarily transferring well to M+KB. But how likely is it that such games will be well received on MacOS at all? They won't materially affect the MacOS marketplace.
Last edited:
I guess you didn't watch Apple's videos about this. I'm not a programmer but it seems like the different UIs won't be much of a problem. Sure, it requires some testing but many functions will be corrected in Xcode when you choose which platform you're porting your game to. iOS14 already supports mouse and keyboard. Here are some videos:
iPad and iPhone apps on Apple silicon Macs - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer
Apple silicon Macs can run many iPad and iPhone apps as-is, and these apps will be made available to users on the Mac through the Mac App...
Bring keyboard and mouse gaming to iPad - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer
Level up your iPad games and add in keyboard, mouse, and trackpad controls. Discover how to use the Game Controller framework to augment...
Support hardware keyboards in your app - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer
When people use hardware keyboards with your app, they're not only getting a more tactile and familiar typing experience — they can...
Last edited:
No, this is the first WWDC that I've not followed at all due to various reasons. Thanks for this.
One of the ideas floating around is touch screen Macs. Then there are the already existing iPad with smart keyboard as well as the magic keyboard option for iPads. If we view iPad + keyboard as a defacto very low end Mac then we already have "touchscreen Macs". On the PC side there is Microsofts Surface X.
This blurs the boundary between mobile and laptop to where further down the line it will makes sense to design your programs for both mobile and laptop...which opens it to desktop use.
In fact I play a mobile game on my mac right now - Raid Shadow Legends. I also played a few mobile games via Nox and Bluestacks which help fix dealing with the interface differences (the speed was horrid though as it was emulating rather then translating ARM commands to an Intel CPU)
Yeah, I can see definitely see someone playing one of those iOS racing games where you steer your car by tilting your iPhone. Except using a 4K monitor instead. Maybe there will be handles on the side. ?
MacOS UI and iOS UI developed independently for a reason: there simply isn't enough common ground. Splitting the difference will simply cripple it on the Mac and cripple it on iOS devices. It's like saying, I'd like to live in New York, and I'd like to live in London, so I'll split the difference and live in the middle of the Atlantic.
Well, it’s clearly a whole new world out there and I don’t know which way is left, or right, anymore.
Videos that show how this would actually work have been provided. Regarding the racing games it would be like Nox or Bluestacks where the tilting is tied to key on a keyboard on a desktop machine only it would be built into the programing interface and not the kludge those programs have to use.
Also MacOS UI and iOS UI haven't been "independent" for a while (there has been a lot of cross polination for several years) and as the videos previously provided by others show Xcode allows you to design programs so they will "know" what they are on and utilize the best interface. So there will not be any "splitting the difference" meaning that using your example you have a portal ala Earth: Final Conflict or an always open Stargate were you can go between New York and London with the ease of walking through a door.
Last edited:
Reviving my thread now that we’ve had the event. What do you all think now that we’ve seen what Apple has up their sleeve? Personally, I don’t see a beginning of a new era for gaming on Mac. I was expecting a much bigger emphasis on GPU performance in the event, but all we got was a handful of mobile games and BG III, all of which looked like they were at very rough frame rates.
