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.
When you say "limitation", you're ignoring the fact that PC games are always intended to run on a wide variety of hardware. Some systems will support Ultra settings, some systems will support High settings, some systems will support Medium settings and some systems will support Low settings. That's the way those games are intended to be used, i.e., they want to sell them to people with a wide variety of hardware setups. The same is true with Apple Arcade. Not everyone is going to have the most recent iPhone or iPad or Mac. That's why Apple has always used an approach that is very similar to PC games with the graphics scaling to the device.
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.
There's a reason why Apple moved away from OpenGL in the first place: it became a ball and chain for their hardware designs because they'd have to backport any hardware advancements to fit it's architecture (wasting developer resources). Even though Vulkan is based around modern GPU architectures, I'm sure Apple is hesitant to get into the same situation again where their hardware designs are being hindered by the software architecture they need to support.
Honestly, I've ported OpenGL based software to both Vulkan and Metal and it's not a difficult task. However, there are a lot more reasons than just graphics holding back games from being ported (audio, networking, sales, etc).
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.
When you say "limitation", you're ignoring the fact that PC games are always intended to run on a wide variety of hardware. Some systems will support Ultra settings, some systems will support High settings, some systems will support Medium settings and some systems will support Low settings. That's the way those games are intended to be used, i.e., they want to sell them to people with a wide variety of hardware setups. The same is true with Apple Arcade. Not everyone is going to have the most recent iPhone or iPad or Mac. That's why Apple has always used an approach that is very similar to PC games with the graphics scaling to the device.
Apple Arcade is no more "limited" than PC gaming.
No, I'm not ignoring that. I know there are different levels of graphics, for example, in consoles like the Switch.
danvm said: No, I'm not ignoring that. I know there are different levels of graphics, for example, in consoles like the Switch.
You don't understand graphics scaling.
Console: the CPU/GPU inside the hardware is always the same. For the Switch, it's always going to be a custom Tegra X1. That means graphic quality doesn't need to scale up or down. The quality target is always going to be the same because the CPU/GPU are always the same.
Windows PC: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations which also means a wide variety of graphic quality levels for a game. Things like textures, geometry and lighting are going to scale up or down in quality based on the strength of the CPU/GPU. Every game that is sold for Windows PC will have a minimum requirement for what it can be run on but that doesn't mean the graphic quality is limited to the minimum level system. It scales up to bleeding edge equipment that can run Ultra settings.
Apple Arcade: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations since users can have multiple generations of iPhone, iPad, Mac and ATV. Again, textures/geometry/lighting and other elements of graphic quality are going to scale up or down in quality based on what CPU/GPU is in the hardware. Again, there is going to be a minimum requirement for hardware that can be used with Apple Arcade games but that doesn't mean graphic quality is limited to the minimum. It scales up in quality to the latest A series and M series chips.
danvm said: No, I'm not ignoring that. I know there are different levels of graphics, for example, in consoles like the Switch.
You don't understand graphics scaling.
Console: the CPU/GPU inside the hardware is always the same. For the Switch, it's always going to be a custom Tegra X1. That means graphic quality doesn't need to scale up or down. The quality target is always going to be the same because the CPU/GPU are always the same.
Windows PC: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations which also means a wide variety of graphic quality levels for a game. Things like textures, geometry and lighting are going to scale up or down in quality based on the strength of the CPU/GPU. Every game that is sold for Windows PC will have a minimum requirement for what it can be run on but that doesn't mean the graphic quality is limited to the minimum level system. It scales up to bleeding edge equipment that can run Ultra settings.
Apple Arcade: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations since users can have multiple generations of iPhone, iPad, Mac and ATV. Again, textures/geometry/lighting and other elements of graphic quality are going to scale up or down in quality based on what CPU/GPU is in the hardware. Again, there is going to be a minimum requirement for hardware that can be used with Apple Arcade games but that doesn't mean graphic quality is limited to the minimum. It scales up in quality to the latest A series and M series chips.
Wrong again/. I understand how graphics scaling works.
danvm said: No, I'm not ignoring that. I know there are different levels of graphics, for example, in consoles like the Switch.
You don't understand graphics scaling.
Console: the CPU/GPU inside the hardware is always the same. For the Switch, it's always going to be a custom Tegra X1. That means graphic quality doesn't need to scale up or down. The quality target is always going to be the same because the CPU/GPU are always the same.
Windows PC: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations which also means a wide variety of graphic quality levels for a game. Things like textures, geometry and lighting are going to scale up or down in quality based on the strength of the CPU/GPU. Every game that is sold for Windows PC will have a minimum requirement for what it can be run on but that doesn't mean the graphic quality is limited to the minimum level system. It scales up to bleeding edge equipment that can run Ultra settings.
Apple Arcade: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations since users can have multiple generations of iPhone, iPad, Mac and ATV. Again, textures/geometry/lighting and other elements of graphic quality are going to scale up or down in quality based on what CPU/GPU is in the hardware. Again, there is going to be a minimum requirement for hardware that can be used with Apple Arcade games but that doesn't mean graphic quality is limited to the minimum. It scales up in quality to the latest A series and M series chips.
Wrong again/. I understand how graphics scaling works.
This is what you said:
"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."
Why say that developers don't take advantage of Mac or ATV if you understand graphic scaling? ATV is using A series chips just like iPhone and iPads now have M series chips just like Macs. There's no reason to believe graphic scaling won't take place on Mac/ATV.
You've also said this:
"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."
Nintendo Switch can run AAA games with a Tegra X1. Do iPhones have better chips than the Tegra X1? Yes. Do iPads have better chips than Tegra X1? Yes. So the games aren't "too complex", it's more about the business aspect. Switch games (and Xbox/Playstation/Windows games) are sold for premium prices. A publisher like 2K wants the premium price version of the game to be better than the version in the $5.99 subscription service...so Apple Arcade gets a modified version of the game that is still fun to play but is lacking a lot of the bells and whistles and polish of the premium version.
jSnively said: Apple has *never* actually been serious about gaming, but it would be cool to see that change.
Surprised people are still trying to frame it this way. The reality in gaming is that MOBILE is now larger for revenue than consoles + PC combined, so Apple is doing quite well really. They're a major player in the largest segment of the industry and their approach per Apple Arcade makes perfect sense given that fact. Sure, they're still well behind when it comes to AAA games but that part is less important than people think.
A must have AAA game creates a “halo” for follow up games demand.
danvm said: No, I'm not ignoring that. I know there are different levels of graphics, for example, in consoles like the Switch.
You don't understand graphics scaling.
Console: the CPU/GPU inside the hardware is always the same. For the Switch, it's always going to be a custom Tegra X1. That means graphic quality doesn't need to scale up or down. The quality target is always going to be the same because the CPU/GPU are always the same.
Windows PC: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations which also means a wide variety of graphic quality levels for a game. Things like textures, geometry and lighting are going to scale up or down in quality based on the strength of the CPU/GPU. Every game that is sold for Windows PC will have a minimum requirement for what it can be run on but that doesn't mean the graphic quality is limited to the minimum level system. It scales up to bleeding edge equipment that can run Ultra settings.
Apple Arcade: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations since users can have multiple generations of iPhone, iPad, Mac and ATV. Again, textures/geometry/lighting and other elements of graphic quality are going to scale up or down in quality based on what CPU/GPU is in the hardware. Again, there is going to be a minimum requirement for hardware that can be used with Apple Arcade games but that doesn't mean graphic quality is limited to the minimum. It scales up in quality to the latest A series and M series chips.
Wrong again/. I understand how graphics scaling works.
Why say that developers don't take advantage of Mac or ATV if you understand graphic scaling? ATV is using A series chips just like iPhone and iPads now have M series chips just like Macs. There's no reason to believe graphic scaling won't take place on Mac/ATV.
You've also said this:
"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."
Nintendo Switch can run AAA games with a Tegra X1. Do iPhones have better chips than the Tegra X1? Yes. Do iPads have better chips than Tegra X1? Yes. So the games aren't "too complex", it's more about the business aspect. Switch games (and Xbox/Playstation/Windows games) are sold for premium prices. A publisher like 2K wants the premium price version of the game to be better than the version in the $5.99 subscription service...so Apple Arcade gets a modified version of the game that is still fun to play but is lacking a lot of the bells and whistles and polish of the premium version.
I didn't say that developers don't take advantage of hardware. I'm saying that the priority is mobile. Mobile is more limited in CPU, GPU and storage capacity compared to a PC or console. If I want to play in a PC / Mac or large TV, I don't want a mobile game. I want games designed for high end hardware, not mobile devices. And that's the experience we have with most Apple Arcade games. That's my point.
Nintendo Switch can run AAA games with a Tegra X1. Do iPhones have better chips than the Tegra X1? Yes. Do iPads have better chips than Tegra X1? Yes. So the games aren't "too complex", it's more about the business aspect. Switch games (and Xbox/Playstation/Windows games) are sold for premium prices. A publisher like 2K wants the premium price version of the game to be better than the version in the $5.99 subscription service...so Apple Arcade gets a modified version of the game that is still fun to play but is lacking a lot of the bells and whistles and polish of the premium version.
Most AAA games in the Switch are from Nintendo. Why? Because they designed the game for a single console, the Switch. That's different from 3rd party AAA games, where they design games for better hardware, and sacrifice quality of textures, resolution, FPS to run in the Switch. When you compare games like Overwatch and The Witcher to PC and consoles, the Switch is noticeable behind. That's the reason some AAA game publishers are using the cloud to run their games in the Switch. All Nintendo Switch Cloud games | iMore Nintendo Support: Cloud Versions of Games - FAQ
Looks like another big title that is popular with casual gamers who might own a Mac for business reasons but still want to play games has dropped support for Mac as they rebuild for modern gaming.
- Cities Skylines 2 - is dropping MacOS Support even thou is was highly popular on MacOS - KSP 2 - no Mac
Apple should if they are serious about games on the working on skilling up developers in porting games and more so make Pad and Mac a single target for games with low friction porting.
Looks like another big title that is popular with casual gamers who might own a Mac for business reasons but still want to play games has dropped support for Mac as they rebuild for modern gaming.
- Cities Skylines 2 - is dropping MacOS Support even thou is was highly popular on MacOS - KSP 2 - no Mac
Apple should if they are serious about games on the working on skilling up developers in porting games and more so make Pad and Mac a single target for games with low friction porting.
Both of these games are built with Unity so, unless there's some platform-specific libraries used, they would be very easy to build for Mac:
Looks like another big title that is popular with casual gamers who might own a Mac for business reasons but still want to play games has dropped support for Mac as they rebuild for modern gaming.
- Cities Skylines 2 - is dropping MacOS Support even thou is was highly popular on MacOS - KSP 2 - no Mac
Apple should if they are serious about games on the working on skilling up developers in porting games and more so make Pad and Mac a single target for games with low friction porting.
Both of these games are built with Unity so, unless there's some platform-specific libraries used, they would be very easy to build for Mac:
They could target Mac and Linux later on after bugs are fixed and DLCs are released.
I believe there has been less than offical comments from both there aren't enough Mac developers to reliably commit to the product for any Mac-centric code that might be needed in the porting. Suggesting Apple could do 2 things to improve the situation or one really well.
invest in lowering the friction in getting Unity and other game engines running on Mac/iPad once developed and invest in developer training.
Looks like another big title that is popular with casual gamers who might own a Mac for business reasons but still want to play games has dropped support for Mac as they rebuild for modern gaming.
- Cities Skylines 2 - is dropping MacOS Support even thou is was highly popular on MacOS - KSP 2 - no Mac
Apple should if they are serious about games on the working on skilling up developers in porting games and more so make Pad and Mac a single target for games with low friction porting.
Both of these games are built with Unity so, unless there's some platform-specific libraries used, they would be very easy to build for Mac:
They could target Mac and Linux later on after bugs are fixed and DLCs are released.
I believe there has been less than offical comments from both there aren't enough Mac developers to reliably commit to the product for any Mac-centric code that might be needed in the porting. Suggesting Apple could do 2 things to improve the situation or one really well.
invest in lowering the friction in getting Unity and other game engines running on Mac/iPad once developed and invest in developer training.
There's a comment here from the Skylines developer about Mac issues:
"The built-in C# compiler had to be dropped from Mac due to notarization issues. I'm afraid that isn't something we are able to support again. ModTools uses that compiler, which is why scripts do not work on Mac. It would be possible for ModTools to include its own compiler, though of course, that would require the modder to add that, which they may not want to or be able to do.
Support for newer hardware is unfortunately not feasible. This is not exclusive to Mac users, but as Apple Silicon is used in more and more Macs, it does affect our Mac players more. We do not have a dedicated Mac development team, we are not that large a studio that we have devs dedicated to one OS alone. Providing support for Apple Silicon would require a significant amount of work, which I'm afraid just isn't feasible for us to do.
I understand this is not the response you were hoping for and for that I am sorry. We also wish this was something we could easily provide for our Mac players, but unfortunately, that is not the case. I hope you are still able to enjoy the game, both playing and modding it."
The Unity engine on its own works well across multiple platforms (the current versions of those games are using Unity too) but custom compiling for mods will run into issues with Apple locking down software for security.
The company only has 30 people. It's a pretty big job for such a small company to handle multiple platforms, it makes sense that they'd drop the smaller platforms.
The Steam Deck (Linux) manages to run these games through a compatibility layer. That kind of feature (Proton) would help Mac gaming a lot just by allowing thousands of older games to run:
Some Cities Skylines players have played over 5000 hours so it's understandable that players want continued support but Mac gaming has always had this problem where they start to build up a playerbase and then a significant transition happens: dropping 32-bit, deprecating OpenGL, moving to x86, moving to ARM, Metal vs Vulkan, adding OS security features. Every transition fragments the player base. Hopefully it will improve with Apple Silicon over time.
Looks like another big title that is popular with casual gamers who might own a Mac for business reasons but still want to play games has dropped support for Mac as they rebuild for modern gaming.
- Cities Skylines 2 - is dropping MacOS Support even thou is was highly popular on MacOS - KSP 2 - no Mac
Apple should if they are serious about games on the working on skilling up developers in porting games and more so make Pad and Mac a single target for games with low friction porting.
Both of these games are built with Unity so, unless there's some platform-specific libraries used, they would be very easy to build for Mac:
They could target Mac and Linux later on after bugs are fixed and DLCs are released.
I believe there has been less than offical comments from both there aren't enough Mac developers to reliably commit to the product for any Mac-centric code that might be needed in the porting. Suggesting Apple could do 2 things to improve the situation or one really well.
invest in lowering the friction in getting Unity and other game engines running on Mac/iPad once developed and invest in developer training.
There's a comment here from the Skylines developer about Mac issues:
"The built-in C# compiler had to be dropped from Mac due to notarization issues. I'm afraid that isn't something we are able to support again. ModTools uses that compiler, which is why scripts do not work on Mac. It would be possible for ModTools to include its own compiler, though of course, that would require the modder to add that, which they may not want to or be able to do.
Support for newer hardware is unfortunately not feasible. This is not exclusive to Mac users, but as Apple Silicon is used in more and more Macs, it does affect our Mac players more. We do not have a dedicated Mac development team, we are not that large a studio that we have devs dedicated to one OS alone. Providing support for Apple Silicon would require a significant amount of work, which I'm afraid just isn't feasible for us to do.
I understand this is not the response you were hoping for and for that I am sorry. We also wish this was something we could easily provide for our Mac players, but unfortunately, that is not the case. I hope you are still able to enjoy the game, both playing and modding it."
The Unity engine on its own works well across multiple platforms (the current versions of those games are using Unity too) but custom compiling for mods will run into issues with Apple locking down software for security.
The company only has 30 people. It's a pretty big job for such a small company to handle multiple platforms, it makes sense that they'd drop the smaller platforms.
The Steam Deck (Linux) manages to run these games through a compatibility layer. That kind of feature (Proton) would help Mac gaming a lot just by allowing thousands of older games to run:
Some Cities Skylines players have played over 5000 hours so it's understandable that players want continued support but Mac gaming has always had this problem where they start to build up a playerbase and then a significant transition happens: dropping 32-bit, deprecating OpenGL, moving to x86, moving to ARM, Metal vs Vulkan, adding OS security features. Every transition fragments the player base. Hopefully it will improve with Apple Silicon over time.
So basically it seems it came down to mods or Mac and mods will win that battle every time especially in big community games like Cities Skylines where the ability to add connect tot he game is vast.
I'd hope this was something Apple was looking in to how to get Scripting, Plug-ins and mods to work within the security model and sandbox without requiring everyone tinkering to have a certificate. There must be someway to make a complier that can only link inside the sandbox it has been certified for and can't operate outside the abilities the app has in effecting the system as a whole.
This isn't just about Games. Professional software relies on the same plug-in ability which is why I think we haven't seen many of those titles jump to the iPad.
It would seem there are 2 valuable markets, both creative and attract attention, that would really benefit from solving the issue without making a massive security hole.
I'd hope this was something Apple was looking in to how to get Scripting, Plug-ins and mods to work within the security model and sandbox without requiring everyone tinkering to have a certificate. There must be someway to make a complier that can only link inside the sandbox it has been certified for and can't operate outside the abilities the app has in effecting the system as a whole.
This isn't just about Games. Professional software relies on the same plug-in ability which is why I think we haven't seen many of those titles jump to the iPad.
It would seem there are 2 valuable markets, both creative and attract attention, that would really benefit from solving the issue without making a massive security hole.
Yes, the code-in-a-sandbox problem is solvable. It just requires time, effort and money. Apple simply hasn't prioritized it as it isn't an approach they use in their own applications, and Apple's first and foremost developer customer is their internal teams. They often point to things their internal teams have delivered as proof that things (e.g. SwiftUI) are ready for prime time. If your approach differs in any significant way, you're in a tough spot and its hard to get Apple's attention enough to motivate change.
Apple is (very) often also opinionated about technologies. They may be right and their chosen technology better (which is true at times, but certainly not always), but the fact that it is different causes problems for developers trying to move from another platform... problems which are more expensive to solve than the expected revenue to be generated from the Apple platforms. Examples of this are plentiful: Metal vs OpenGL vs D3D vs Vulkan, languages and runtimes, etc.
Apple is also quite aggressive about moving their platforms forward. 32->64 bit (hacking off 32-bit support amazingly quickly), Intel -> Apple Silicon (and previously 68k -> PPC -> x86 -> x86_64), etc.
All of this is very tough for small developers to tolerate. Especially for a market which is (at best) 10% of the potential market. And the games market these days is already larger on mobile, then on consoles, then on PC. So Mac is a tiny fraction of the interesting market for games. If you're a dev living hand-to-mouth, are you going to add an insignificant platform that forces you to re-write your tech on a regular basis that differs with from the other platforms? No. Even large devs look at the ROI here and walk away from it.
This is solvable, but it requires a very significant and long term investment from Apple. It is a chicken-and-egg type of problem -- Apple needs to drive ahead to solutions without short-term wins, until their platform starts to grow due to becoming perceived of more as a gaming platform. Difficult as it requires an attitude change in Apple leadership. And that's not a superficial "games are important" position, its a position where they care about why their place in the game market is the way it is, and how to really fix it. There would need to be a multi-stage plan lasting a decade to incrementally move from solving the problem in the short term (how to get the current game industry products onto the Mac -- most likely without need the game devs to do the hard work), to the long term strategy to ensure that game devs build their games for Mac/iOS first.
Is it worth it for Apple to do that? That's a very interesting question. With a narrow view of the current Apple lineup? No, I don't think it would be. With a broader view of what Apple's product lineup could be? Yes, I think it could fuel the next phase of Apple's growth. Where the Mac/PC market is relatively small potatoes compared to mobile and dedicated entertainment hardware. They certainly have the technology and technical capability. Whether they go for it really depends on the vision of Apple leadership, and how it compares to other growth markets Apple could focus on (VR/AR/MR, vehicles, healthcare, ...).
Comments
Apple Arcade is no more "limited" than PC gaming.
Honestly, I've ported OpenGL based software to both Vulkan and Metal and it's not a difficult task. However, there are a lot more reasons than just graphics holding back games from being ported (audio, networking, sales, etc).
Console: the CPU/GPU inside the hardware is always the same. For the Switch, it's always going to be a custom Tegra X1. That means graphic quality doesn't need to scale up or down. The quality target is always going to be the same because the CPU/GPU are always the same.
Windows PC: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations which also means a wide variety of graphic quality levels for a game. Things like textures, geometry and lighting are going to scale up or down in quality based on the strength of the CPU/GPU. Every game that is sold for Windows PC will have a minimum requirement for what it can be run on but that doesn't mean the graphic quality is limited to the minimum level system. It scales up to bleeding edge equipment that can run Ultra settings.
Apple Arcade: wide variety of CPU/GPU combinations since users can have multiple generations of iPhone, iPad, Mac and ATV. Again, textures/geometry/lighting and other elements of graphic quality are going to scale up or down in quality based on what CPU/GPU is in the hardware. Again, there is going to be a minimum requirement for hardware that can be used with Apple Arcade games but that doesn't mean graphic quality is limited to the minimum. It scales up in quality to the latest A series and M series chips.
"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."
Why say that developers don't take advantage of Mac or ATV if you understand graphic scaling? ATV is using A series chips just like iPhone and iPads now have M series chips just like Macs. There's no reason to believe graphic scaling won't take place on Mac/ATV.
You've also said this:
"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."
Nintendo Switch can run AAA games with a Tegra X1. Do iPhones have better chips than the Tegra X1? Yes. Do iPads have better chips than Tegra X1? Yes. So the games aren't "too complex", it's more about the business aspect. Switch games (and Xbox/Playstation/Windows games) are sold for premium prices. A publisher like 2K wants the premium price version of the game to be better than the version in the $5.99 subscription service...so Apple Arcade gets a modified version of the game that is still fun to play but is lacking a lot of the bells and whistles and polish of the premium version.
Most AAA games in the Switch are from Nintendo. Why? Because they designed the game for a single console, the Switch. That's different from 3rd party AAA games, where they design games for better hardware, and sacrifice quality of textures, resolution, FPS to run in the Switch. When you compare games like Overwatch and The Witcher to PC and consoles, the Switch is noticeable behind. That's the reason some AAA game publishers are using the cloud to run their games in the Switch.
All Nintendo Switch Cloud games | iMore
Nintendo Support: Cloud Versions of Games - FAQ
- Cities Skylines 2 - is dropping MacOS Support even thou is was highly popular on MacOS
- KSP 2 - no Mac
Apple should if they are serious about games on the working on skilling up developers in porting games and more so make Pad and Mac a single target for games with low friction porting.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/949230/discussions/0/3790380404159654096/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerbal_Space_Program_2
They could target Mac and Linux later on after bugs are fixed and DLCs are released.
invest in lowering the friction in getting Unity and other game engines running on Mac/iPad once developed and invest in developer training.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/mac-development-open-letter.1561569/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_Order_(company)
"The built-in C# compiler had to be dropped from Mac due to notarization issues. I'm afraid that isn't something we are able to support again. ModTools uses that compiler, which is why scripts do not work on Mac. It would be possible for ModTools to include its own compiler, though of course, that would require the modder to add that, which they may not want to or be able to do.
Support for newer hardware is unfortunately not feasible. This is not exclusive to Mac users, but as Apple Silicon is used in more and more Macs, it does affect our Mac players more. We do not have a dedicated Mac development team, we are not that large a studio that we have devs dedicated to one OS alone. Providing support for Apple Silicon would require a significant amount of work, which I'm afraid just isn't feasible for us to do.
I understand this is not the response you were hoping for and for that I am sorry. We also wish this was something we could easily provide for our Mac players, but unfortunately, that is not the case. I hope you are still able to enjoy the game, both playing and modding it."
The Unity engine on its own works well across multiple platforms (the current versions of those games are using Unity too) but custom compiling for mods will run into issues with Apple locking down software for security.
The company only has 30 people. It's a pretty big job for such a small company to handle multiple platforms, it makes sense that they'd drop the smaller platforms.
The Steam Deck (Linux) manages to run these games through a compatibility layer. That kind of feature (Proton) would help Mac gaming a lot just by allowing thousands of older games to run:
Some Cities Skylines players have played over 5000 hours so it's understandable that players want continued support but Mac gaming has always had this problem where they start to build up a playerbase and then a significant transition happens: dropping 32-bit, deprecating OpenGL, moving to x86, moving to ARM, Metal vs Vulkan, adding OS security features. Every transition fragments the player base. Hopefully it will improve with Apple Silicon over time.
I'd hope this was something Apple was looking in to how to get Scripting, Plug-ins and mods to work within the security model and sandbox without requiring everyone tinkering to have a certificate. There must be someway to make a complier that can only link inside the sandbox it has been certified for and can't operate outside the abilities the app has in effecting the system as a whole.
This isn't just about Games.
Professional software relies on the same plug-in ability which is why I think we haven't seen many of those titles jump to the iPad.
It would seem there are 2 valuable markets, both creative and attract attention, that would really benefit from solving the issue without making a massive security hole.
Yes, the code-in-a-sandbox problem is solvable. It just requires time, effort and money. Apple simply hasn't prioritized it as it isn't an approach they use in their own applications, and Apple's first and foremost developer customer is their internal teams. They often point to things their internal teams have delivered as proof that things (e.g. SwiftUI) are ready for prime time. If your approach differs in any significant way, you're in a tough spot and its hard to get Apple's attention enough to motivate change.
Apple is (very) often also opinionated about technologies. They may be right and their chosen technology better (which is true at times, but certainly not always), but the fact that it is different causes problems for developers trying to move from another platform... problems which are more expensive to solve than the expected revenue to be generated from the Apple platforms. Examples of this are plentiful: Metal vs OpenGL vs D3D vs Vulkan, languages and runtimes, etc.
Apple is also quite aggressive about moving their platforms forward. 32->64 bit (hacking off 32-bit support amazingly quickly), Intel -> Apple Silicon (and previously 68k -> PPC -> x86 -> x86_64), etc.
All of this is very tough for small developers to tolerate. Especially for a market which is (at best) 10% of the potential market. And the games market these days is already larger on mobile, then on consoles, then on PC. So Mac is a tiny fraction of the interesting market for games. If you're a dev living hand-to-mouth, are you going to add an insignificant platform that forces you to re-write your tech on a regular basis that differs with from the other platforms? No. Even large devs look at the ROI here and walk away from it.
This is solvable, but it requires a very significant and long term investment from Apple. It is a chicken-and-egg type of problem -- Apple needs to drive ahead to solutions without short-term wins, until their platform starts to grow due to becoming perceived of more as a gaming platform. Difficult as it requires an attitude change in Apple leadership. And that's not a superficial "games are important" position, its a position where they care about why their place in the game market is the way it is, and how to really fix it. There would need to be a multi-stage plan lasting a decade to incrementally move from solving the problem in the short term (how to get the current game industry products onto the Mac -- most likely without need the game devs to do the hard work), to the long term strategy to ensure that game devs build their games for Mac/iOS first.
Is it worth it for Apple to do that? That's a very interesting question. With a narrow view of the current Apple lineup? No, I don't think it would be. With a broader view of what Apple's product lineup could be? Yes, I think it could fuel the next phase of Apple's growth. Where the Mac/PC market is relatively small potatoes compared to mobile and dedicated entertainment hardware. They certainly have the technology and technical capability. Whether they go for it really depends on the vision of Apple leadership, and how it compares to other growth markets Apple could focus on (VR/AR/MR, vehicles, healthcare, ...).