Games are a hits-driven business and when 95% of hit titles don't even run on your platform then you're not a "great" gaming machine. Once in a blue moon you'll get a AAA title years late, but even in the most recent case, the Mac version of RE:VIII is one of the worst looking versions of that game you can play.
Also, Bloober team is... rough. Layers of Fear was a great horror game (some may say the best), but the 5 or so titles they've done since have been pretty mediocre-to-bad. Observer probably gets a nod, but that's about it. I don't think anybody has faith they will do a good job with the SH2 remake.
The MetalFX stuff is good (and needed for the resolution Apple pushes in their monitors), but it's generations behind what DLSS offers at this point. If Apple were serious they would bootstrap a solution based off the work being done on the Linux side of things (Wine/DXVK/VKD3D etc.) instead of trying to get developers to port to their proprietary APIs which will never happen en masse.
Apple has *never* actually been serious about gaming, but it would be cool to see that change.
This year is the first time I’ve heard them say they intend to make the Mac a gaming platform. That sounds like they are serious about it now. I think having their own cpu and gpu makes them more comfortable with focusing their efforts. They no long have to wait for someone else to deliver the chips they developed for on time.
If Apple was actually serious about gaming it would set up its own studio and buy a killer game, make it apple silicon exclusive, then start writing follow ups itself, all written and operating natively in metal. Exactly same strategy as Microsoft did with the originally Mac OS developed Halo to get people to buy Xbox.
I would regard that as just as important as the Linux approach suggested by Mr Snively.
Apple would probably also need to have Apple silicon able to do ray tracing.
I agree with this 100%. They need the gaming equivalent of appletv+. I think it could happen.
Also, note that Apple doesn’t have to get hard core pc gamers (pooty shoe types) to buy macs. They just need to get the folks who enjoy games but also have a job and a life. There are many such people.
Games are a hits-driven business and when 95% of hit titles don't even run on your platform then you're not a "great" gaming machine. Once in a blue moon you'll get a AAA title years late, but even in the most recent case, the Mac version of RE:VIII is one of the worst looking versions of that game you can play.
Also, Bloober team is... rough. Layers of Fear was a great horror game (some may say the best), but the 5 or so titles they've done since have been pretty mediocre-to-bad. Observer probably gets a nod, but that's about it. I don't think anybody has faith they will do a good job with the SH2 remake.
The MetalFX stuff is good (and needed for the resolution Apple pushes in their monitors), but it's generations behind what DLSS offers at this point. If Apple were serious they would bootstrap a solution based off the work being done on the Linux side of things (Wine/DXVK/VKD3D etc.) instead of trying to get developers to port to their proprietary APIs which will never happen en masse.
Apple has *never* actually been serious about gaming, but it would be cool to see that change.
This year is the first time I’ve heard them say they intend to make the Mac a gaming platform. That sounds like they are serious about it now. I think having their own cpu and gpu makes them more comfortable with focusing their efforts. They no long have to wait for someone else to deliver the chips they developed for on time.
Apple appears to be building from the ground up, and when you build an ecosystem from the ground up, it’s not glamorous, and it takes time, for example buying Activision, or any other game or company will never work if you’re trying to build the whole ecosystem that goes along with your native GPUs in tandem.
Apple obviously doesn’t want any dependency on any outside company for their future.
jSnively said: When I say they don't take gaming "seriously" I am talking about embracing and enabling the medium itself. I'm not talking about profit margins and revenue streams. Arguments for innovation outside of pure technological grunt are valid (look at Nintendo for the prime example), but they're not doing that either.
What platform did Apple focus on initially for development of their own SoCs? Mobile. What platform did Apple first release Metal on? Mobile. So the mobile side of the business was the original driver for what they're talking about now on Macs in terms of gaming quality...1st party M series chips + Metal. It's pretty obvious that Apple embraced/enabled gaming on mobile since those are the apps that generate the most revenue in the App Store and Apple's platform is #1 in mobile gaming.
And don't forget that Apple Arcade represented the first gaming service that could be run across every type of hardware...iPhone, iPad, Mac and Apple TV. That was a new idea in the industry and also a key to getting Apple customers more familiar with gaming on larger screens than phones/tablets. Again, it's mobile that's driving their strategy and it's been very successful. Apple has been serious about gaming it's just not the perspective that AAA gamers tend to have regarding gaming. Apple viewed mobile as the driver and AAA gamers/companies viewed desktops/consoles as the driver.
Games are a hits-driven business and when 95% of hit titles don't even run on your platform then you're not a "great" gaming machine. Once in a blue moon you'll get a AAA title years late, but even in the most recent case, the Mac version of RE:VIII is one of the worst looking versions of that game you can play.
Also, Bloober team is... rough. Layers of Fear was a great horror game (some may say the best), but the 5 or so titles they've done since have been pretty mediocre-to-bad. Observer probably gets a nod, but that's about it. I don't think anybody has faith they will do a good job with the SH2 remake.
The MetalFX stuff is good (and needed for the resolution Apple pushes in their monitors), but it's generations behind what DLSS offers at this point. If Apple were serious they would bootstrap a solution based off the work being done on the Linux side of things (Wine/DXVK/VKD3D etc.) instead of trying to get developers to port to their proprietary APIs which will never happen en masse.
Apple has *never* actually been serious about gaming, but it would be cool to see that change.
This year is the first time I’ve heard them say they intend to make the Mac a gaming platform. That sounds like they are serious about it now. I think having their own cpu and gpu makes them more comfortable with focusing their efforts. They no long have to wait for someone else to deliver the chips they developed for on time.
Apple appears to be building from the ground up, and when you build an ecosystem from the ground up, it’s not glamorous, and it takes time, for example buying Activision, or any other game or company will never work if you’re trying to build the whole ecosystem that goes along with your native GPUs in tandem.
Apple obviously doesn’t want any dependency on any outside company for their future.
I won't think they are serious about it until they become a game publisher. Whether they buy a game company or have their on in-house team, doesn't matter that much. They need to set up a situation where Mac owners will spend enough money on games to make it worthwhile for other game companies to jump in. So, they need a few killer games that are exclusive to the platform to really kickstart that. A game from a 3rd party isn't going to do that as they will want to publish it on all platforms as soon as possible.
jSnively said: When I say they don't take gaming "seriously" I am talking about embracing and enabling the medium itself. I'm not talking about profit margins and revenue streams. Arguments for innovation outside of pure technological grunt are valid (look at Nintendo for the prime example), but they're not doing that either.
What platform did Apple focus on initially for development of their own SoCs? Mobile. What platform did Apple first release Metal on? Mobile. So the mobile side of the business was the original driver for what they're talking about now on Macs in terms of gaming quality...1st party M series chips + Metal. It's pretty obvious that Apple embraced/enabled gaming on mobile since those are the apps that generate the most revenue in the App Store and Apple's platform is #1 in mobile gaming.
And don't forget that Apple Arcade represented the first gaming service that could be run across every type of hardware...iPhone, iPad, Mac and Apple TV. That was a new idea in the industry and also a key to getting Apple customers more familiar with gaming on larger screens than phones/tablets. Again, it's mobile that's driving their strategy and it's been very successful. Apple has been serious about gaming it's just not the perspective that AAA gamers tend to have regarding gaming. Apple viewed mobile as the driver and AAA gamers/companies viewed desktops/consoles as the driver.
I think it's bonkers to look at the history Apple has with games and to look at their "efforts" in the mobile space and come to the conclusion they did anything but stumble into financial success there due to the gigantic user base. You don't have to look any further than Game Center and what a neglected bare-bones service that was for the vast majority of its life to understand games are not a priority at Apple, despite driving a fair amount of revenue. Likewise, if you look at the history of Apple Arcade and how they have managed and maintained it, it's pretty bleak...
Again, when most folks talk about getting "serious" about gaming they talk about the medium, not the money. Most people who love video games absolutely hate what the mobile ecosystem has done to it. It's been a disastrous and predatory race to the bottom. Is it financially successful? Absolutely -- for the 1%. That's not what's being discussed here though, and when they trot out AAA games as showpieces every few years that's not what they're trying to communicate either.
As mentioned multiple times in the thread, one of their biggest issues is that they keep putting up hurdles for developers. OpenGL was woefully out of date forever, Vulkan was eschewed in favor of Metal, and now they also have to deal with x86 to arm translations, too. All of those are self inflicted wounds. None of them would be a death-blow if Apple cared about getting more games on the platform and put the resources behind that effort -- but they don't. There are literally thousands of engaging indie games available today that would be fantastic on Apple's machines and would scream on the hardware, but where are they? it's the same reason Macs make up only ~2.6% of the Steam hardware survey.
Tht is mostly correct. They either need to spin up some internal studios or they need to start dumping a lot more money into Apple Arcade and use it aggressively as a publishing arm. At the very least they need to get serious about being a gaming platform, and start building out the tools and infrastructure to make developer's lives easier -- to their credit, the recent updates to Game Center were all very welcome and much overdue additions. However, until they start doing that they will never be taken "seriously" inside the gaming space no matter how much money can be scammed generated from the mobile audience.
jSnively said: I think it's bonkers to look at the history Apple has with games and to look at their "efforts" in the mobile space and come to the conclusion they did anything but stumble into financial success there due to the gigantic user base.
When you say "history Apple has with games" you're really only referencing desktop/laptop which is part of my point. You obviously have the AAA gamer perspective which views everything through the lens of AAA games and the platforms they run on.
If you look at Apple from the mobile gaming perspective, it's obvious they didn't just stumble into success. The very first model of iPhone had an all-screen design + a far more powerful OS than smartphones of the time used. Good for games? Check. Apple quickly followed that up with the App Store (2008) and their own SoC designs (2010) that led the smartphone industry in terms of performance. Good for games? Check. The only real parallel to that type of custom high performance SoC and digital download orientation were, in fact, video game consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360 which launched approximately a year earlier than the iPhone. And what was Apple's 30% commission structure and strict control of the store based on? Again, video game consoles. iOS never lagged for game development like OS X and earlier Mac operating systems. Developers saw the potential in it right from the start and iOS quickly became the launch platform of choice for mobile games.
It's obvious that Apple had a plan that specifically included gaming. The iPhone and iOS essentially were a reboot of their computing business. Apple had every intention of using mobile as the driver going forward. It wasn't a "stumble" and they had no "gigantic user base" when the iPhone and iOS originally launched.
jSnively said: Most people who love video games absolutely hate what the mobile ecosystem has done to it. It's been a disastrous and predatory race to the bottom. Is it financially successful? Absolutely -- for the 1%. That's not what's being discussed here though, and when they trot out AAA games as showpieces every few years that's not what they're trying to communicate either.
And what is the race in AAA gaming? To consolidate the industry into a very small group of mega corporations. That's because AAA gaming is incredibly expensive in terms of development budgets. But as I already pointed out, AAA gaming has another disadvantage which is that it doesn't generate more revenue despite its constantly rising budgets. Is AAA gaming really sustainable? When Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, the only franchise in Activision's portfolio that outperformed the mobile title Candy Crush for revenue was Call of Duty.
Yes, mobile games that use the freemium approach can be annoying but it's basically a modern interpretation of the system that the original arcade game machines used back in the 1970s and 80s: ask for more quarters to continue the game you had been playing. People tend to forget that those arcade machines were fairly harsh in terms of the experience. You had to feed a lot of $$ into them if you had any aspirations of playing for more than a few minutes. A quarter in 1980 is the equivalent of a dollar today.
Games are a hits-driven business and when 95% of hit titles don't even run on your platform then you're not a "great" gaming machine. Once in a blue moon you'll get a AAA title years late, but even in the most recent case, the Mac version of RE:VIII is one of the worst looking versions of that game you can play.
Also, Bloober team is... rough. Layers of Fear was a great horror game (some may say the best), but the 5 or so titles they've done since have been pretty mediocre-to-bad. Observer probably gets a nod, but that's about it. I don't think anybody has faith they will do a good job with the SH2 remake.
The MetalFX stuff is good (and needed for the resolution Apple pushes in their monitors), but it's generations behind what DLSS offers at this point. If Apple were serious they would bootstrap a solution based off the work being done on the Linux side of things (Wine/DXVK/VKD3D etc.) instead of trying to get developers to port to their proprietary APIs which will never happen en masse.
Apple has *never* actually been serious about gaming, but it would be cool to see that change.
This year is the first time I’ve heard them say they intend to make the Mac a gaming platform. That sounds like they are serious about it now. I think having their own cpu and gpu makes them more comfortable with focusing their efforts. They no long have to wait for someone else to deliver the chips they developed for on time.
Apple appears to be building from the ground up, and when you build an ecosystem from the ground up, it’s not glamorous, and it takes time, for example buying Activision, or any other game or company will never work if you’re trying to build the whole ecosystem that goes along with your native GPUs in tandem.
Apple obviously doesn’t want any dependency on any outside company for their future.
I find interesting that you mention that Apple doesn't want to depend on outside companies, but they depend 100% on 3rd party for games development, since they are not a publisher or game developer. We could say that Apple success in mobile gaming is because the App Store.
And while Apple maybe has done a great job with their silicon, their gaming efforts for the living room and Macs have been terrible. They don't have something as simple as a game controller. Compare that to Nintendo, who showed the market that you don't need the best hardware or silicon to succeed.
BTW, what is the "ecosystem Apple is building from the ground"? Do you have a link to an article with details about it?
danvm said: If you ask me, that's a terrible idea, especially for gaming in large TV's or Mac's. I don't want to play a game designed for iPhone in a 65" TV. And I don't want to play the limited Apple Arcade version of NBA 2K designed for iPhone / iPad in my Apple TV or Mac. If I have a capable console or PC / Mac, I want to take advantage of its hardware to improve the gaming experience. Like you said, Apple view mobile as its driver, and that's the reason we see a terrible gaming experience in Mac and the Apple TV.
My interpretation of this comment is that you've never used Apple Arcade across all of Apple's devices. Games will look good on large 4K TVs if you have a 4K version of ATV. Games look good on 4K/5K monitors with macOS as well. As for NBA2K, I play the Apple Arcade version all the time and IMO it's still quite fun. 2K intentionally limits some of the graphic performance on 4K ATV because they don't want it to compete with console versions and I can live with that. It's obvious that they could do better with the ATV version when you compare it with the Nintendo Switch version. Both 4K ATVs have more powerful SoCs than the original Switch so it's not a technical issue.
Yes, I know that you can play games across devices, even in 4K TV's. But that's not the point. The issue is that you are playing a mobile game in a Mac or ATV. Those games do not take advantage of better hardware. I don't see customers looking forward to play Candy Crush in their Mac or Apple TV. And I don't see gamers playing with the mobile version on NBA 2K outside of mobile devices when you have a better version in consoles and PC's. Maybe you can live with that, but I don't see that majority going Apple to play limited games in the TV's and Mac's. At least in my opinion.
BTW, I have been playing with the trial of Apple Arcade for the past 1-2 weeks.
danvm said: If you ask me, that's a terrible idea, especially for gaming in large TV's or Mac's. I don't want to play a game designed for iPhone in a 65" TV. And I don't want to play the limited Apple Arcade version of NBA 2K designed for iPhone / iPad in my Apple TV or Mac. If I have a capable console or PC / Mac, I want to take advantage of its hardware to improve the gaming experience. Like you said, Apple view mobile as its driver, and that's the reason we see a terrible gaming experience in Mac and the Apple TV.
My interpretation of this comment is that you've never used Apple Arcade across all of Apple's devices. Games will look good on large 4K TVs if you have a 4K version of ATV. Games look good on 4K/5K monitors with macOS as well. As for NBA2K, I play the Apple Arcade version all the time and IMO it's still quite fun. 2K intentionally limits some of the graphic performance on 4K ATV because they don't want it to compete with console versions and I can live with that. It's obvious that they could do better with the ATV version when you compare it with the Nintendo Switch version. Both 4K ATVs have more powerful SoCs than the original Switch so it's not a technical issue.
danvm said: Yes, I know that you can play games across devices, even in 4K TV's. But that's not the point. The issue is that you are playing a mobile game in a Mac or ATV. Those games do not take advantage of better hardware.
iOS/iPadOS games have always scaled the graphics to the CPU/GPU being used. Higher performing SoCs get better textures/lighting etc. It's essentially the same type of approach as PC gaming since iOS/iPadOS were always going to have a variety of generations of hardware running the games. That also means that Apple Arcade games are going to scale to Mac and ATV hardware. However, as I pointed out with NBA2K, there are occasions where the developer might have a commercial reason to limit graphic fidelity below the hardware being used.
danvm said: Yes, I know that you can play games across devices, even in 4K TV's. But that's not the point. The issue is that you are playing a mobile game in a Mac or ATV. Those games do not take advantage of better hardware.
iOS/iPadOS games have always scaled the graphics to the CPU/GPU being used. Higher performing SoCs get better textures/lighting etc. It's essentially the same type of approach as PC gaming since iOS/iPadOS were always going to have a variety of generations of hardware running the games. That also means that Apple Arcade games are going to scale to Mac and ATV hardware. However, as I pointed out with NBA2K, there are occasions where the developer might have a commercial reason to limit graphic fidelity below the hardware being used.
It looks like you agree with me. Apple focus in mobile gaming impact negatively their Mac and ATV gaming experience.
And you said there are cases where a developer might impact graphic fidelity for business reasons. Do you have a link supporting that? From what I know, developer do their best for the platform they develop. With Apple Arcade developers focus in iPhone / iPad, not Mac or Apple TV. I think that's the reason we see a limited gaming experience in from Apple in Mac's and ATV.
danvm said: It looks like you agree with me. Apple focus in mobile gaming impact negatively their Mac and ATV gaming experience.
And you said there are cases where a developer might impact graphic fidelity for business reasons. Do you have a link supporting that? From what I know, developer do their best for the platform they develop. With Apple Arcade developers focus in iPhone / iPad, not Mac or Apple TV. I think that's the reason we see a limited gaming experience in from Apple in Mac's and ATV.
1) No, I don't agree with you. You claimed Apple Arcade games "do not take advantage of better hardware" which is incorrect. The games scale the graphic quality to the level of hardware being used. It's the same approach as PC gaming. Are you not familiar with PC gaming?
2) I don't need a link if you're doing a trial of Apple Arcade. Download and launch NBA2K23 and create your own custom player in MyCareer. The facial geometry/textures look good in the player creation mode. Then use that player in the MyCareer 'Practice' mode. The facial geometry/textures that you see for your custom player still look good. BUT when you go to play an actual game in MyCareer the face of your custom player is going to look noticeably lower quality. Is that because there are more players on the court and the game needs to lower the quality? No. All of the licensed NBA players that appear in-game are higher quality for facial geometry/textures. It's only the custom players that have lower quality. That's obviously an intentional choice by 2K and not a technical limitation. The proof? Go into The Greatest section of the game and play a game as one of the licensed NBA legends and not as a custom player. None of the 10 guys on the court are going to have the lower quality facial geometry/textures like the custom player does in MyCareer. That's only one example.
Just support Vulcan. With that in MacOS games will come. Relying on developers to spend time for 5% of the market, of the which most are base units not running Apple Silicon, is ridiculous. Not only do you need to put in a ton of effort to port to Metal, you may not see returns for big intensive games because most users won't be able to run them. Meanwhile, if Vulkan is available, it's a simple checkbox in major engines. People are a lot more willing to make Mac ports if the effort is miniscule to make them.
danvm said: It looks like you agree with me. Apple focus in mobile gaming impact negatively their Mac and ATV gaming experience.
And you said there are cases where a developer might impact graphic fidelity for business reasons. Do you have a link supporting that? From what I know, developer do their best for the platform they develop. With Apple Arcade developers focus in iPhone / iPad, not Mac or Apple TV. I think that's the reason we see a limited gaming experience in from Apple in Mac's and ATV.
1) No, I don't agree with you. You claimed Apple Arcade games "do not take advantage of better hardware" which is incorrect. The games scale the graphic quality to the level of hardware being used. It's the same approach as PC gaming. Are you not familiar with PC gaming?
2) I don't need a link if you're doing a trial of Apple Arcade. Download and launch NBA2K23 and create your own custom player in MyCareer. The facial geometry/textures look good in the player creation mode. Then use that player in the MyCareer 'Practice' mode. The facial geometry/textures that you see for your custom player still look good. BUT when you go to play an actual game in MyCareer the face of your custom player is going to look noticeably lower quality. Is that because there are more players on the court and the game needs to lower the quality? No. All of the licensed NBA players that appear in-game are higher quality for facial geometry/textures. It's only the custom players that have lower quality. That's obviously an intentional choice by 2K and not a technical limitation. The proof? Go into The Greatest section of the game and play a game as one of the licensed NBA legends and not as a custom player. None of the 10 guys on the court are going to have the lower quality facial geometry/textures like the custom player does in MyCareer. That's only one example.
danvm said: It looks like you agree with me. Apple focus in mobile gaming impact negatively their Mac and ATV gaming experience.
And you said there are cases where a developer might impact graphic fidelity for business reasons. Do you have a link supporting that? From what I know, developer do their best for the platform they develop. With Apple Arcade developers focus in iPhone / iPad, not Mac or Apple TV. I think that's the reason we see a limited gaming experience in from Apple in Mac's and ATV.
1) No, I don't agree with you. You claimed Apple Arcade games "do not take advantage of better hardware" which is incorrect. The games scale the graphic quality to the level of hardware being used. It's the same approach as PC gaming. Are you not familiar with PC gaming?
2) I don't need a link if you're doing a trial of Apple Arcade. Download and launch NBA2K23 and create your own custom player in MyCareer. The facial geometry/textures look good in the player creation mode. Then use that player in the MyCareer 'Practice' mode. The facial geometry/textures that you see for your custom player still look good. BUT when you go to play an actual game in MyCareer the face of your custom player is going to look noticeably lower quality. Is that because there are more players on the court and the game needs to lower the quality? No. All of the licensed NBA players that appear in-game are higher quality for facial geometry/textures. It's only the custom players that have lower quality. That's obviously an intentional choice by 2K and not a technical limitation. The proof? Go into The Greatest section of the game and play a game as one of the licensed NBA legends and not as a custom player. None of the 10 guys on the court are going to have the lower quality facial geometry/textures like the custom player does in MyCareer. That's only one example.
1) I didn't say that. My point is that most games in Apple Arcade are designed for mobile devices first, not Mac or Apple TV. That creates a limitation, considering developers do not take advantage of better hardware available in the Mac or Apple TV. IMO, Apple Arcade limits what developers can do with games in Macs and ATV. Maybe we'll se something different in the future. 2) I know that, and I have seen other examples in Switch games. My point is that many AAA games requires better hardware than a mobile device have. But you said those limits are business decisions. And it could it be for some games. But there are other games, especially AAA games, that are too complex for mobile devices, and I don't see them coming to Apple Arcade if Apple keep its focus in mobile first games. Even games as NBA 2K22 have more features and game modes (not just graphics) than that mobile NBA 2K22 Arcade. You may think it's because commercial reason, but it's also possible that mobile device has limits that won't allow to have the full game as PC and consoles.
jSnively said: Most people who love video games absolutely hate what the mobile ecosystem has done to it. It's been a disastrous and predatory race to the bottom. Is it financially successful? Absolutely -- for the 1%. That's not what's being discussed here though, and when they trot out AAA games as showpieces every few years that's not what they're trying to communicate either.
And what is the race in AAA gaming? To consolidate the industry into a very small group of mega corporations. That's because AAA gaming is incredibly expensive in terms of development budgets. But as I already pointed out, AAA gaming has another disadvantage which is that it doesn't generate more revenue despite its constantly rising budgets. Is AAA gaming really sustainable? When Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, the only franchise in Activision's portfolio that outperformed the mobile title Candy Crush for revenue was Call of Duty.
Yes, mobile games that use the freemium approach can be annoying but it's basically a modern interpretation of the system that the original arcade game machines used back in the 1970s and 80s: ask for more quarters to continue the game you had been playing. People tend to forget that those arcade machines were fairly harsh in terms of the experience. You had to feed a lot of $$ into them if you had any aspirations of playing for more than a few minutes. A quarter in 1980 is the equivalent of a dollar today.
I think we should just agree to disagree on this one. I stand by all my points. At the end of the day, even if I take your position as true (which I do not), then to me they have still failed in every metric that matters except revenue. You can make the argument that is the only one that matters, but I stated explicitly that is not what is being discussed and is probably where the confusion stems from. In fact, the impact mobile has had on the medium can be viewed as a massive negative. If you can't make sense of that, then you're going to continue to be surprised when people continue to say Apple sucks at gaming.
Games are a hits-driven business and when 95% of hit titles don't even run on your platform then you're not a "great" gaming machine. Once in a blue moon you'll get a AAA title years late, but even in the most recent case, the Mac version of RE:VIII is one of the worst looking versions of that game you can play.
Also, Bloober team is... rough. Layers of Fear was a great horror game (some may say the best), but the 5 or so titles they've done since have been pretty mediocre-to-bad. Observer probably gets a nod, but that's about it. I don't think anybody has faith they will do a good job with the SH2 remake.
The MetalFX stuff is good (and needed for the resolution Apple pushes in their monitors), but it's generations behind what DLSS offers at this point. If Apple were serious they would bootstrap a solution based off the work being done on the Linux side of things (Wine/DXVK/VKD3D etc.) instead of trying to get developers to port to their proprietary APIs which will never happen en masse.
Apple has *never* actually been serious about gaming, but it would be cool to see that change.
Apple play, Long and do not become dependent on third-party outfits, do what you need to do behind the scenes. In short continue to stay vertical in computing.
If Apple wants AAA games in general, and not a few here and there, to be playable on a Mac, unless they are going to build out a high quality game platform, they will have to depend on others, or buy up an existing successful game studio and hope it doesn't take too many resources to retool everything to run on MacOS.
On the other hand, if they're happy with the current state of gaming on Mac, and this is just a marketing thing, then they're already successful in the mobile space, and need do nothing else much to continue that.
jSnively said: Most people who love video games absolutely hate what the mobile ecosystem has done to it. It's been a disastrous and predatory race to the bottom. Is it financially successful? Absolutely -- for the 1%. That's not what's being discussed here though, and when they trot out AAA games as showpieces every few years that's not what they're trying to communicate either.
And what is the race in AAA gaming? To consolidate the industry into a very small group of mega corporations. That's because AAA gaming is incredibly expensive in terms of development budgets. But as I already pointed out, AAA gaming has another disadvantage which is that it doesn't generate more revenue despite its constantly rising budgets. Is AAA gaming really sustainable? When Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, the only franchise in Activision's portfolio that outperformed the mobile title Candy Crush for revenue was Call of Duty.
Yes, mobile games that use the freemium approach can be annoying but it's basically a modern interpretation of the system that the original arcade game machines used back in the 1970s and 80s: ask for more quarters to continue the game you had been playing. People tend to forget that those arcade machines were fairly harsh in terms of the experience. You had to feed a lot of $$ into them if you had any aspirations of playing for more than a few minutes. A quarter in 1980 is the equivalent of a dollar today.
I think we should just agree to disagree on this one. I stand by all my points. At the end of the day, even if I take your position as true (which I do not), then to me they have still failed in every metric that matters except revenue. You can make the argument that is the only one that matters, but I stated explicitly that is not what is being discussed and is probably where the confusion stems from. In fact, the impact mobile has had on the medium can be viewed as a massive negative. If you can't make sense of that, then you're going to continue to be surprised when people continue to say Apple sucks at gaming.
C'est la vie ߤ禬t;/div>
There's no "confusion" on my part. You have the AAA gamer viewpoint, i.e., you never really considered mobile gaming to be relevant. That's the same view that Microsoft and Epic had until the $$ part of it began to dwarf PC/console gaming. But that doesn't mean mobile = $$ and nothing else. The only step Apple didn't take to support/enable gaming on mobile is start their own 1st party game development studio. That's it. Everything else is there in terms of the technology and services R&D...the powerful custom processors, the emphasis on high resolution screens, the 1st party graphics API, the store, the 3rd party development support, the customers that spend money on games. Your personal opinion that mobile gaming is a negative doesn't change those facts.
Comments
Apple obviously doesn’t want any dependency on any outside company for their future.
And don't forget that Apple Arcade represented the first gaming service that could be run across every type of hardware...iPhone, iPad, Mac and Apple TV. That was a new idea in the industry and also a key to getting Apple customers more familiar with gaming on larger screens than phones/tablets. Again, it's mobile that's driving their strategy and it's been very successful. Apple has been serious about gaming it's just not the perspective that AAA gamers tend to have regarding gaming. Apple viewed mobile as the driver and AAA gamers/companies viewed desktops/consoles as the driver.
I think it's bonkers to look at the history Apple has with games and to look at their "efforts" in the mobile space and come to the conclusion they did anything but stumble into financial success there due to the gigantic user base. You don't have to look any further than Game Center and what a neglected bare-bones service that was for the vast majority of its life to understand games are not a priority at Apple, despite driving a fair amount of revenue. Likewise, if you look at the history of Apple Arcade and how they have managed and maintained it, it's pretty bleak...
Again, when most folks talk about getting "serious" about gaming they talk about the medium, not the money. Most people who love video games absolutely hate what the mobile ecosystem has done to it. It's been a disastrous and predatory race to the bottom. Is it financially successful? Absolutely -- for the 1%. That's not what's being discussed here though, and when they trot out AAA games as showpieces every few years that's not what they're trying to communicate either.
As mentioned multiple times in the thread, one of their biggest issues is that they keep putting up hurdles for developers. OpenGL was woefully out of date forever, Vulkan was eschewed in favor of Metal, and now they also have to deal with x86 to arm translations, too. All of those are self inflicted wounds. None of them would be a death-blow if Apple cared about getting more games on the platform and put the resources behind that effort -- but they don't. There are literally thousands of engaging indie games available today that would be fantastic on Apple's machines and would scream on the hardware, but where are they? it's the same reason Macs make up only ~2.6% of the Steam hardware survey.
Tht is mostly correct. They either need to spin up some internal studios or they need to start dumping a lot more money into Apple Arcade and use it aggressively as a publishing arm. At the very least they need to get serious about being a gaming platform, and start building out the tools and infrastructure to make developer's lives easier -- to their credit, the recent updates to Game Center were all very welcome and much overdue additions. However, until they start doing that they will never be taken "seriously" inside the gaming space no matter how much money can be scammed generated from the mobile audience.
If you look at Apple from the mobile gaming perspective, it's obvious they didn't just stumble into success. The very first model of iPhone had an all-screen design + a far more powerful OS than smartphones of the time used. Good for games? Check. Apple quickly followed that up with the App Store (2008) and their own SoC designs (2010) that led the smartphone industry in terms of performance. Good for games? Check. The only real parallel to that type of custom high performance SoC and digital download orientation were, in fact, video game consoles like the PS3 and Xbox 360 which launched approximately a year earlier than the iPhone. And what was Apple's 30% commission structure and strict control of the store based on? Again, video game consoles. iOS never lagged for game development like OS X and earlier Mac operating systems. Developers saw the potential in it right from the start and iOS quickly became the launch platform of choice for mobile games.
It's obvious that Apple had a plan that specifically included gaming. The iPhone and iOS essentially were a reboot of their computing business. Apple had every intention of using mobile as the driver going forward. It wasn't a "stumble" and they had no "gigantic user base" when the iPhone and iOS originally launched.
Yes, mobile games that use the freemium approach can be annoying but it's basically a modern interpretation of the system that the original arcade game machines used back in the 1970s and 80s: ask for more quarters to continue the game you had been playing. People tend to forget that those arcade machines were fairly harsh in terms of the experience. You had to feed a lot of $$ into them if you had any aspirations of playing for more than a few minutes. A quarter in 1980 is the equivalent of a dollar today.
And while Apple maybe has done a great job with their silicon, their gaming efforts for the living room and Macs have been terrible. They don't have something as simple as a game controller. Compare that to Nintendo, who showed the market that you don't need the best hardware or silicon to succeed.
BTW, what is the "ecosystem Apple is building from the ground"? Do you have a link to an article with details about it?
BTW, I have been playing with the trial of Apple Arcade for the past 1-2 weeks.
And you said there are cases where a developer might impact graphic fidelity for business reasons. Do you have a link supporting that? From what I know, developer do their best for the platform they develop. With Apple Arcade developers focus in iPhone / iPad, not Mac or Apple TV. I think that's the reason we see a limited gaming experience in from Apple in Mac's and ATV.
2) I don't need a link if you're doing a trial of Apple Arcade. Download and launch NBA2K23 and create your own custom player in MyCareer. The facial geometry/textures look good in the player creation mode. Then use that player in the MyCareer 'Practice' mode. The facial geometry/textures that you see for your custom player still look good. BUT when you go to play an actual game in MyCareer the face of your custom player is going to look noticeably lower quality. Is that because there are more players on the court and the game needs to lower the quality? No. All of the licensed NBA players that appear in-game are higher quality for facial geometry/textures. It's only the custom players that have lower quality. That's obviously an intentional choice by 2K and not a technical limitation. The proof? Go into The Greatest section of the game and play a game as one of the licensed NBA legends and not as a custom player. None of the 10 guys on the court are going to have the lower quality facial geometry/textures like the custom player does in MyCareer. That's only one example.
2) I know that, and I have seen other examples in Switch games. My point is that many AAA games requires better hardware than a mobile device have. But you said those limits are business decisions. And it could it be for some games. But there are other games, especially AAA games, that are too complex for mobile devices, and I don't see them coming to Apple Arcade if Apple keep its focus in mobile first games. Even games as NBA 2K22 have more features and game modes (not just graphics) than that mobile NBA 2K22 Arcade. You may think it's because commercial reason, but it's also possible that mobile device has limits that won't allow to have the full game as PC and consoles.
I think we should just agree to disagree on this one. I stand by all my points. At the end of the day, even if I take your position as true (which I do not), then to me they have still failed in every metric that matters except revenue. You can make the argument that is the only one that matters, but I stated explicitly that is not what is being discussed and is probably where the confusion stems from. In fact, the impact mobile has had on the medium can be viewed as a massive negative. If you can't make sense of that, then you're going to continue to be surprised when people continue to say Apple sucks at gaming.
C'est la vie 🤷