Well, it looks like Steam is actually close to adding Apple Silicon support.
The core support has been added last week.
Well, it looks like Steam is actually close to adding Apple Silicon support.
Maybe the link was too subtle ?.The core support has been added last week.
Maybe the link was too subtle ?.
I've updated the post with a really apparent link to Andrew Tsai's YouTube video.
Depends on what numbers are and what they grow to.Even if Apple's chips are good for gaming, there is little reason for any developer to dedicate time or resources to developing games on the Mac. I liked having Intel chips because I could load Windows and play the few PC games I play through Windows even though they are also available on Mac, but now it's obvious I'll either need a PC to keep playing them once my Intel MBP ages or just rely only on a console to game.
Apple does not offer friction-less hardware component upgrades. In that respect it's like a PlayStation, Xbox or Nintendo. Those video consoles are updated nearly every decade.Depends on what numbers are and what they grow to.
Remember: Apple Silicon Macs have been out less than a year now, so the population size isn't presently that great.
That said, shortly after Apple introduced them the Mac Mini became the best selling computer in Japan.
A lot of people - including some more OS agnostic Windows aficionados - have been buying them for their undeniable price/performance/energy efficiency.
I remain committed to the idea that developers go where the numbers and gaming capable systems are - and of population, a certain number will be willing to buy games and play them.
Much depends on how Apple prices future Macs.I remain committed to the idea that developers go where the numbers and gaming capable systems are - and of population, a certain number will be willing to buy games and play them.
And that is a significant point as it’s once again a reminder the latest and greatest hardware isn’t necessary, though, of course, desired.Those video consoles are updated nearly every decade.
Rule of thumb with video consoles.And that is a significant point as it’s once again a reminder the latest and greatest hardware isn’t necessary, though, of course, desired.
Here’s some proof in PC land:
The problem with comparing Macs to consoles is developers can expect the hardware to stay constant for that amount of time, so they can squeeze "all" the performance out of the hardware (plus they get lower level access to come up with novel workarounds). You don't get that with Apple (nor PC) hardware. Developers don't spend time in the weeds to eek out every last drop of performance on Mac or PC because of the "wide" swath of hardware that would have to be supported.Rule of thumb with video consoles.
First year of production the games on it has yet to push the full potential of the console hardware.
Year or two before its replacement debuts the video games starts pushing the envelop of what can be done.
Historically I'd only buy a video console when the 1st price cut or 1st die shrink occurs. By then the native game library would be large enough to get a few excellent exclusives.
With Macs... I'd do something to a similar effect but with Apple Silicon blowing everyone's expectation out of the water made me wish I stuck to my 2011 MBP 13" and wait for the 2021 MBP 16" with Apple Silicon rather than the 2019 Intel model.
I would think the current crops of M1 Macs should be a good baseline for many games.The problem with comparing Macs to consoles is developers can expect the hardware to stay constant for that amount of time, so they can squeeze "all" the performance out of the hardware (plus they get lower level access to come up with novel workarounds). You don't get that with Apple (nor PC) hardware. Developers don't spend time in the weeds to eek out every last drop of performance on Mac or PC because of the "wide" swath of hardware that would have to be supported.
Actually it is but the most vocal & visible of comments are those demanding RTX 3090 performance from 30W PSU.I would think the current crops of M1 Macs should be a good baseline for many games.
I mean for the price is it too much to ask for feature and performance parity with say an Xbox Series X? It doesn't have to be 3090 levels of performance.Actually it is but the most vocal & visible of comments are those demanding RTX 3090 performance from 30W PSU.
Most Macs (like most PCs) are not purchased primarily for gaming. They are purchased for normal computing tasks, and the fact that some of them may be capable of running games is mostly incidental.Actually it is but the most vocal & visible of comments are those demanding RTX 3090 performance from 30W PSU.
Are there games where the developer has made a ton of money but it didn't come out on a console? I really feel like strategy games like civilization are the only ones where that may be true.Most Macs (like most PCs) are not purchased primarily for gaming. They are purchased for normal computing tasks, and the fact that some of them may be capable of running games is mostly incidental.
There are users who do purchase computers primarily for gaming, but most of those are on the PC side. I maintain that those users make up but a small sliver of the total market, and while they form a lucrative portion of the gaming developer's audience, I believe that they represent a distinct minority of a game developer's total revenue.
This is why it's important for a game to have the ability to run on a wide variety of systems - not everyone in their target audience is going to have the latest GPU from nVidea or AMD. The equation of course changes if you're targeting game consoles where fixed performance targets apply.
If we go by money the will make only mobile games in the future.Are there games where the developer has made a ton of money but it didn't come out on a console? I really feel like strategy games like civilization are the only ones where that may be true.
I didn't say consoles were excluded ... just that a developer might want their software to run on a variety of performance envelopes to maximize revenue.Are there games where the developer has made a ton of money but it didn't come out on a console? I really feel like strategy games like civilization are the only ones where that may be true.
I too am excited about new hardware that can do the things you are talking about, I just am afraid it won't change developers minds in a way that would allow me to abandon the PC I built.I didn't say consoles were excluded ... just that a developer might want their software to run on a variety of performance envelopes to maximize revenue.
I (for instance) throughout the years have bought a bunch of MacBook Pros and iMacs with with decent graphics performance.
My job was as an IT guy and in-house developer before I retired, and at home I did a lot of transcoding and a bit of video editing so my systems were on the heavier side. I was able to run the Tomb Raider reincarnations with no problems at various crippled levels, but my 2020 iMac is a beast since Apple finally woke up and smelled the coffee.
Prior to M1, you'd never think of running games on the MacBook Air ... but now with Apple Silicon, even this lowly Mac has the oomph to game.
My 2019 16" Intel MacBook Pro could run the Tomb Raiders at about half resolution with its Radeon Pro 5500M, and I expect my new 16" (if rumors are correct) will have around twice the compute and four times the graphic oomph of the M1 - so I expect that one will run full resolution with all the options at a good frame rate, just like the 2020 iMac with a core-i9 and its Radeon Pro 5700 XT w/16 GB.
But even so, I hear that the M1 machines are running the Tomb Raider series under Rosetta 2 at a decent frame rate, which means that even Apple Silicon ultrabooks are capable of gaming which produces a bigger population percentage-wise of gaming capable devices than is the Intel ultrabook market (which is where I believe a large percentage of the Wintel/Chromebook market is).
As time goes on and the percentage of Apple Silicon Macs increase, this will form a large pool of potentially gaming capable devices since they will all be capable of gaming.
I'm sure that if you've built a PC for gaming it's got more than an M1's oomph ?.I too am excited about new hardware that can do the things you are talking about, I just am afraid it won't change developers minds in a way that would allow me to abandon the PC I built.
Margins of PC gamers are substantial enough to cater to them.Most Macs (like most PCs) are not purchased primarily for gaming. They are purchased for normal computing tasks, and the fact that some of them may be capable of running games is mostly incidental.
There are users who do purchase computers primarily for gaming, but most of those are on the PC side. I maintain that those users make up but a small sliver of the total market, and while they form a lucrative portion of the gaming developer's audience, I believe that they represent a distinct minority of a game developer's total revenue.
This is why it's important for a game to have the ability to run on a wide variety of systems - not everyone in their target audience is going to have the latest GPU from nVidea or AMD. The equation of course changes if you're targeting game consoles where fixed performance targets apply.
Consider the non-performance aspects of Macs such asI mean for the price is it too much to ask for feature and performance parity with say an Xbox Series X? It doesn't have to be 3090 levels of performance.
Could you point to a notebook that has similar specs (including weight, thickness, screen resolution, performance, etc.) that has graphics similar to a series X?I mean for the price is it too much to ask for feature and performance parity with say an Xbox Series X? It doesn't have to be 3090 levels of performance.
The expected high-end MBP with 32 GPU cores should meet the performance of current-generation consoles. The price is still too high – not because such laptops are expensive to produce but for product differentiation. Hardware makers always sell high-end devices at high profit margins, because that makes them more profit than basing the prices on costs. Console makers have other ways of making profit, and the prices they charge for hardware reflect the actual costs better.Could you point to a notebook that has similar specs (including weight, thickness, screen resolution, performance, etc.) that has graphics similar to a series X?