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.
Will Apple ever support more games?
- Thread starter atarria
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is what you're really asking, "Will more game companies support Mac OSX?"
It's not apple, it's the game companies.
It's not apple, it's the game companies.
IMO it's 50/50.
Dev studios need to support OSX, but Apple need to update their drivers more frequently.
I wouldn't blame it all on the dev companies. The fact is that DirectX is more appealing for the "cutting edge" than OpenGL. These are the graphics engines supported by the Win and OSX respectively. Therefore, most game devs find Win development more appealing...and goes circularly with consumers finding Win more appealing for games.
The different techs can be summarized "simply" like follows:
DirectX is propretary and MS throws money into it so that it will push the edge...even much faster than most game devs can catch up.
OpenGL is well..."open"...which is partly made by the "open source community" etc. It's made to be compatible across computers (Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix, etc.). And it really has little money compared to MS in addition to open source having a bunch of "aspiring programmers" contribute to it vs. full-time dedicated programmers/scientists/engineers/market analysts/whatever. And Apple basically uses this open stuff rather than make an "OSXGL".
The different techs can be summarized "simply" like follows:
DirectX is propretary and MS throws money into it so that it will push the edge...even much faster than most game devs can catch up.
OpenGL is well..."open"...which is partly made by the "open source community" etc. It's made to be compatible across computers (Windows, Mac, Linux, Unix, etc.). And it really has little money compared to MS in addition to open source having a bunch of "aspiring programmers" contribute to it vs. full-time dedicated programmers/scientists/engineers/market analysts/whatever. And Apple basically uses this open stuff rather than make an "OSXGL".
Oh, the gaming companies decided to put mobile graphics cards in a large-screen desktop machine (the iMac)? :-\
It seems that Apple could do a lot more to provide an incentive for game companies to co-develop higher-end games for OS X as well as Windows.
Last edited:
I have no idea why devs doesn't keep up with DX.
DX 9 is ancient, over 8 years old, the 9.0c specs are from 2003 with some fixes implemented.
DX10 was introduced in 2006 and DX11 in 2009.
DX9 is kept around because they wanna support windows XP still.
DX 9 is ancient, over 8 years old, the 9.0c specs are from 2003 with some fixes implemented.
DX10 was introduced in 2006 and DX11 in 2009.
DX9 is kept around because they wanna support windows XP still.
Actually I think that the evolution of the Mac from the Finder-type desktop metaphor to a more iPad-like OS is going to happen over time, and there will be new opportunities for developers, much like the explosion of games in the iTunes store, look for a jump in the app store. However, I really can't see how traditional console or PC-centric games like BF3 will ever grace a Mac.
I could be wrong.
I am a lot.
Imagining the future in Mac is like trying to win the lottery.
I could be wrong.
I am a lot.
Imagining the future in Mac is like trying to win the lottery.
The high end 21" and both the 27" iMacs have great graphics cards. (Under Bootcamp) I can play all my games at native res and max settings, except Crysis, oddly enough!
When you consider how many DX9 capable machines are out there, and that it's easier for porting modern console games, it makes sense. Besides it's really damn good, there haven't been major leaps since DX9 because there's not that much to improve on.
Good god I hope not.
Bear in mind that mobile gaming market=/=computer gaming market. The rise of touchscreen portable devices meant super casual and cheap games can exist. I imagine the sales of Angry Birds on iOS supersede those of the OSX and Windows versions combined.
I 100% agree with that!
My point was that ras claimed DX was bleeding edge and game developers had problems keeping up because MS did push never versions faster than game devs could keep up with.
DX9 is still looking great and I kinda like that we see dx9 titles around.
I really think there is a awhile until we see most games being dx10/11 only, since most mobile graphics cards can barely handle dx9 and the fact is that laptop sales are up and fewer buy desktops.
the majority of OSes and hardware used are DX9 capable and not higher... you do not rush out DX11 if your cutting off 50 million potential customers.
Plus if you want to get to Xbox 360, it has to be DX9, since Xbox doesn't run anything higher yet.
Its also best to keep DX9 if you want to do a Cider/Wine port to Mac OS X.
More Titles Are Apperaing
All the time now, check the App store COD and the like are now there. I gave up games a while back, but have been tempted to buy COD at £5.99 It was a lot more than that years ago, and Id like to see it on my 27" iMac
The list will continue to grow as time goes on.
All the time now, check the App store COD and the like are now there. I gave up games a while back, but have been tempted to buy COD at £5.99 It was a lot more than that years ago, and Id like to see it on my 27" iMac
The list will continue to grow as time goes on.
Great mobile graphics cards! Most desktop cards out there blow them away. And in a year you'll be happy if you get 20 fps on low-mid settings with new games.
That's a very wild assumption. Consider that the PC market reflects the console market - games haven't improved that much over the last 5 years. It's only in the last year that most major releases look as good as Crysis did in 2006/7 and there isn't much room to expand into. Game requirements don't change as drastically as you think they do.
And all the upcoming PC games I've played run great on my iMac.
That's not an assumption at all. I had an iMac from mid 2007 - mid 2010. In 2007 I happily played for example Bioshock 1 at high settings and 1920x1200 and talked like you do now. In 2008 games started to require medium settings and since 2009 everything was low. Just wait and see.
I know I'll never buy an iMac again because it has basically the same limitations like a laptop without the portability.
I had a 2006 iMac that ran games at Medium up until L4D2 (2009).
I'm running games expected to be released throughout 2012 that run perfectly on my system at max, and in a few months my machine will be a year old.
What games were you running? Bioshock was one of the last Unreal Engine 2.5 games, after that it was mostly Unreal Engine 3 so that's probably why later games didn't run well on your machine. You've also got to consider that Apple splurged on graphics cards this generation.
And as for it being a mobile card, it is yes. But in GTAIV benchmarks I get the same score as a friend who has a near similar spec PC with a desktop 6970. A still very expensive card, only those £100 graphics cards will show their age in a year.
Most dev's don't really feel they need to use (and train their teams in) the few extra tidbits MS throws into DX. In reality, unless a player really knew what to look for, almost everyone will not conciously notice the difference in many real-game-cases until you see them side by side. But there will always be those couple of devs that feel they need to make their smoke look realler and reflections of fireballs off those small ponds in the game look cooler. And if it's not really to make it truly discernatble to the player...it's to make buzz in Ars Technica columns and Gamespot analytics. And if you're lucky, you can become part of contemporary geek-speek. For Example:
"Holy crap, dude...I bet your new computer can even run Crysis on Ultra!"
Regarding the mobile cheap game thing, I think more credit goes the the AppStore business model. It just makes it easy for the average person to click on a little time-waster and feed the pockets of a basement dev who can't hire a team to compete with Call of Duty. After all, contrary to popular believe, the iPhone was not the first touchscreen moblie device ever!
How are you running games released throughout 2012 now? Beta? Just curious.
If you are happy with your iMac that's great for you, I was not because of its many compromises and its awfully reflective screen with its dust and smudges behind the glass that according to Apple are normal wear and tear and will not make the same mistake twice.
I work in the industry.
That's interesting regarding replacements. I've had items replaced easily, even before I had Apple Care. They even replaced my old DVD drive because of "wear and tear".
I hear what you're saying though. In all previous iMac generations Apple never pushed the boat out with video cards. But they really did well with the current models. It can even be safely overclocked (my previous gen iMac survived for 3 years being pushed 250mhz past the stock speed too) so I'm not worried.
Well whatever the case is, you really have limited options on the Mac in terms of upgradability. In a general PC, you can upgrade the video card and in "3 years" you might be able to run the next "Crysis" reasonably well. Of course it all depends on the game you want to run and your other system specs, but most games these days seem to be taxing the video card more and more as technology is released. And one day, running a gaming computer would be equivalent to an air conditioner in terms of power. lol
GTA 4 is perhaps the most unoptimized game ever.
Desktop 6970 is twice as fast or more than the 6970M.
Comparing 6770M to 6970M makes more sense than 6970M to 6970.
The 6970M is still a great card, but it has same performance as the top 2008 cards. (GTX280OC scores roughly the same as 6970 in 3Dmark Vantage/3DMark06)
Oh my yes. But it's still a great system benchmarking tool and the only one we both had to hand.
It's a shame Apple doesn't offer a cheaper mac pro with an i7 or something. It's annoying having to get a whole new machine just to get an improvement in graphics. I know a few guys still with core2duo (overclocked ofc) but they stick a new card in every 2 years and can run the latest games at almost highest settings.
My next "main" computer will probably be a windows 8 based desktop based on the sole reason that I can upgrade as I go. Would miss having OSX around but tbh I'm in bootcamp most of the time so probably won't miss it as much as I think I will.
My next "main" computer will probably be a windows 8 based desktop based on the sole reason that I can upgrade as I go. Would miss having OSX around but tbh I'm in bootcamp most of the time so probably won't miss it as much as I think I will.
I was a PC person since the early 80's and in all honesty, that never seems to work as well as one might think. You buy a good machine now, and 3 years down the line it's a dog. Ok, so you want to play a new game, you go out and buy the a new, very good video card and install it. Only to find it gave you a 10% boost; but still unplayable. Turns out your CPU is now the bottleneck. Ok, you can replace the CPU for $175. . . oh, but the socket has changed, again. That means new mother board. Oh, and now you need better memory. But you kept the same case at least.
Generally, the CPU/GPU combination has to be in sync with one another. You can't have a GPU that is too fast for the CPU because you'll just starve it out. You can't have a CPU that is too fast for the GPU because then it's sitting idle too long (sorta). The best bet is to upgrade both at the same time to something that is about equivalent. Unfortunately that pushes the price much higher.
Now don't get me wrong, you can upgrade your PC yourself twice and still be below the cost of an iMac. And, the CPU's and GPU's are not moving nearly as fast as they were; thus the time between upgrades is growing. But the modern iMacs are decent machines and can do a whole heck of a lot; and for people who are more mature (aged) the convenience of it just working out of the box is a huge benefit. I can build computers without a problem; but I just chose not to anymore because my life is too busy.
Anyway, the whole "upgrade" theory has never really been proven to be right; as soon as someone starts to upgrade their machine, there always seems to be one component lacking bringing down the performance for everything. Upgrade it all, or nothing, is really the only realistic approach.
I agree with you to a certain extent. But I feel it sometimes depends on the luck of the draw and how you made your build in the beginning too. Slots change and bottlenecks happen, but sometimes depending on your motherboard choice and future projection luck, you can reasonably upgrade components over and over again a certain number of years. I mean, theoretically, you can cycle the entire computer by upgrading components including the case. Because there's always an overlap between different generations of components manufacturers sell you. I believe ppl upgrade RAM all the time and it makes a big improvement. If 3 years is too long, then maybe 2 is reasonable for the "latest game". But yeah...if you have a slow bus and old PCI slot, then you're outta luck. And the only "simultaneous upgrade" that is a recurring theme, is the Motherboard/CPU combo. But in certain cases, like budget matters, CPU upgrades can be practical too.
Last edited: