Game Mode isn't enough to bring gaming to macOS, and Apple needs to do more

AppleInsider

Apple is bringing Game Mode and a porting toolkit to macOS Sonoma. It's a good start, but Apple needs to do far more to attract gamers and game makers to the Mac.

Apple Arcade is, in theory, a great concept -- Pay one low monthly fee and have unlimited access to a stable of games across a variety of genres, unencumbered with any sort of in-app purchases. And in theory, they're all playable across Apple TV and the Mac.

Unfortunately, Apple Arcade hasn't quite lived up to the ideal.

Right now, Apple Arcade is heavy with mobile games along with a smattering of original titles that play on the Mac. Many of the games available through Apple Arcade don't work on the Mac.

And those that do must, by necessity, support other Apple devices.

Apple Arcade games often don't look or play like Mac games

This forced scalability means that Apple Arcade games which work on the Mac aren't necessarily optimized for the Mac. Most of the fare you find in Apple Arcade sports interfaces and controls that were designed for touch input, which immediate creates some UI cognitive dissonance on the Mac. Graphics and textures in Apple Arcade games often scale poorly from mobile to desktop or laptop screens.

Apple needs to offer a more compelling experience for Mac gamers on Arcade. Like in days of yore, there should be Mac-exclusive titles like Marathon was originally, or like Halo was going to be, or titles that really show off what macOS can do.

Not just games that you can play on any Apple device.

Foster original Mac game development

Apple could and should bring game development in-house to see what can really cook when the developer isn't worried about making Apple code work well enough compared to other platforms, but better. I've been banging this drum for years, but I think it's imperative these days.

Apple now controls its own silicon and the software that runs on it. It's in a unique position to be able to showcase its own technology.

But Apple eschews the first-party development studio model favored by much of the rest of the industry: wholly-owned subsidiaries who make games specifically for their hardware. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are no strangers to eating their own dog food, as the saying goes.

The risk is that Apple invests in a group that fails to return a profit. But the reward is the ability to evolve the Mac from also-ran to superior -- to spotlight unique user experiences you won't find on other platforms.

Stop showcasing old games

Apple certainly works with third-party developers and game publishers where it's appropriate. The company even showcases their efforts during publicity events like the WWDC keynote. Even then, however, the Mac comes across as an also-ran.

Take 2022's WWDC, which featured a Mac version of No Man's Sky, Hello Games' action-survival game which has been out since July 2018, and the Mac version finally came out around the same time as WWDC 2023. Resident Evil Village came out for the Mac in October of 2022, almost a year and a half after its debut.

This WWDC saw Apple spotlight Death Stranding: Director's Cut, a special edition of Hideo Kojima's open world action game -- which has been out since 2019.

No Man's Sky is great to have on the Mac, but isn't cutting-edge

Apple says that Mac versions of these games are possible thanks to advances in Metal 3, its graphics API. But showcasing four or five year old games as exemplars of what Mac hardware can do isn't going to get anyone very interested in playing or developing Mac games.

In fact, it's insulting to game players.

Apple should get out in front of this with compelling, original content. And if it's not willing to bootstrap its own first-party game development studio, I'd like to see Apple convince more game makers to really flex the technology to see what they can do in more meaningful ways than just porting existing titles to the Mac platform.

Keep making the process easier

Game Porting Toolkit gives game devs a leg up on the work of Mac game conversion by making it possible to test games before porting them. Its announcement was buoyed by reports from gamers who have used the toolkit to play Windows games on their Macs; a curiosity for the technically inclined, but of little practical use since games can't be distributed this way.

But the news about the toolkit may have overshadowed more important efforts and improvements Apple is making to simplify the Mac to Windows game pipeline.

Metal shader converter, for example, helps devs convert shaders and graphics code to run natively on the Mac, while MetalFX upscaling can help games improve frame rates while maintaining high levels of visual fidelity. Offline shader compilation is another trick that Apple's rolled out that promises smoother gameplay and faster game and level load times.

1080p, left - and 4K upscaled on the right with anti-aliasing upscaling.

There's a lot more that Apple needs to do here.

These new tools provide Metal with features similar to those Nvidia created through its Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) tech, which dramatically improve game framerates using interpolation and other techniques. But DLSS has made hardware-based realtime ray tracing possible for newer PC games running on Nvidia's RTX GPUs, and that tech is missing from the Mac.

It's laudable for Apple to add more game tech to macOS and I want to see it continue. But let's be realistic: even if all the improvements Apple's making to game technology on the Mac were available today, it wouldn't change things for the vast majority of users, just folks with M-series Macs and Sonoma, which isn't out yet.

So these efforts are squarely foundation-building, not world-changing.

Open the Mac (again)

I doubt Apple will ever give Mac gamers a truly modular system that can accommodate upgradable components like new, mass-market consumer GPU cards, but we got close with Intel Macs. For a while, external GPUs connected through Thunderbolt interfaces provided even the modest Mac mini with a lot of extra graphics oomph.

Apple's eGPU developer's kit.

While we were big fans, eGPUs weren't a solution for everyone, adding expense, bulk and complexity. They often needed some tweaking to work right, but they provided an option to gamers and graphics pros that needed a different solution than the GPU Apple included in their gear, with sometimes astonishing results.

Unfortunately, eGPUs went out the window with the switch to Apple Silicon. Apple's excuse is that its M series chips use a unified memory architecture that doesn't support eGPUs.

It's beyond just no support. At present, even if AMD went rogue and wrote a driver for the card, there's no way to implement it.

If an interview with Daring Fireball earlier this year is any indication, this will not change any time soon. Apple's head of hardware engineering John Ternus said, "it's not entirely clear to me how you'd bring in another GPU and do so in a way that is optimized for our systems."

I understand why Apple says it needs to keep this closed approach but it still doesn't sit well with me, and I don't believe the technical issues around this are insurmountable. Regardless, I know that for as long as Macs remain closed off from any sort of modular expandability -- beside the increasingly niche Mac Pro -- Mac appeal to gamers will remain limited.

Sustain the momentum

Apple's business goals sometimes come into direct conflict with the game market. Ask any gamer who watched big chunks of their Mac-compatible Steam games library go away after Apple's transition to 64-bit in Catalina, for example.

That's one fairly recent example. But Apple's history is dotted with similar examples going back decades. Apple isn't afraid to create some short-term discomfort for developers and users if it suits the company's long-term goals.

Getting gamers interested in the Mac again is one thing, and Apple is making a good attempt here. Keeping game devs and publishers interested in Macs is a different story.

Hopefully Apple can keep this new momentum going, but Macs have sold in record numbers for years and it's barely moved the needle on game sales.

And even with those record sales, there are more than 10 Windows machines to one Mac, and even in that one per 10, it isn't a majority on Apple Silicon.

With Apple's priorities shifting from season to season depending on management regime and business goals, sustaining any gaming momentum requires a sea change inside of Apple that I don't see any signs of.

Decades ago, DirectX started as a skunkworks project inside of Microsoft, to help build the appeal of Windows 95 to game developers, many of whom still eschewed Windows support in favor of DOS. It took a while, but eventually Microsoft realized that DirectX was a crown jewel.

Today, supporting DirectX and game technology is a core objective throughout Microsoft's business. I've witnessed enough honest attempts from within Apple to improve the landscape for gamers and game developers which end up aborted or deprecated and forgotten that I'm skeptical these recent advances will be any different.

I'd love to see evidence that Apple thinks of game technology as a core discipline, but we're not there yet.

In the interim, I'll keep playing games on the Mac when it makes sense. But that's why most of us at AppleInsider also keep around a PC, running Windows and equipped with a PCI-E GPU. Gaming on that device is just fundamentally a better user experience than on my Mac. I, like so many others, want that to change.

Read on AppleInsider

tmay

I'm not a gamer, but at the same time, it would be difficult to portray anything other than casual gaming on the Mac as a financial benefit to Apple.

Shorter version of your post;

Apple's hardware philosophy, built around energy, packaging, and production efficiencies, is antithetical to the gaming world, which is rich with customizations built around maximizing TDP. That Apple can barely deliver a marginally configurable Mac Pro is telling, and is indication enough that Apple will not deliver hardware specifically for gamers.

All that said, Apple's hardware is no slouch, and game developers could certainly deliver native games to the Mac, but even then, M series marketshare today, after barely two years into the transition, would be minuscule against the PC market, a financial risk for developers.

tenthousandthings

Well put. Quality bloviation, thank you.

While it would still need to be accompanied by the commitments and efforts you mention, there is a way to answer the question posed by Ternus. He’s right that there’s no optimal way to integrate AMD’s current PCIe GPU architecture, for example. Plus, I don’t think he only means unified memory. It’s also about TBDR (tile-based deferred rendering) and Apple’s approach to GPU architecture.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/metal/tailor_your_apps_for_apple_gpus_and_tile-based_deferred_rendering

Nonetheless, it could still be done, by creating PCIe components that use this approach. Imagination Technologies is one company that could do this, not to mention Apple itself. PCIe 5 and Thunderbolt 5 make this practical.

mayfly

Apple has succeeded almost beyond belief by focusing on core competencies, avoiding "shiny object" distractions, and leveraging what they do best for maximum profits. And that's what they should continue doing. Apple has never been the dominant player in the gaming arena, and I don't see any benefit for Apple to jump into the chaos in that sector.

avon b7

mayfly said:

Apple has succeeded almost beyond belief by focusing on core competencies, avoiding "shiny object" distractions, and leveraging what they do best for maximum profits. And that's what they should continue doing. Apple has never been the dominant player in the gaming arena, and I don't see any benefit for Apple to jump into the chaos in that sector.

It has long been argued, with good reason IMO, that Apple's lack of commitment to gaming is a major reason why people rule out Macs as purchases. 

That isn't a good thing because it means you are deliberately underperforming in an area that holds massive economic potential.

The key here is not how well you are doing. The key is how much better you could be doing. 

The same thing happened with the original iMac launch. Widely lauded as a success, it was a case of massive underperforming for a variety of reasons. 

freeassociate2

(Shrugs) Nintendo seems to do just fine with their hardware choices. It’s a lack of commitment from devs and studios, not a lack hardware that’s bleeding edge.

Also, “old” games, really? You mean the ones people are still playing, buying, and otherwise spending money on, even years later? Oh, I am so insulted.

I don’t think the majority of the macOS market cares about gaming on that platform. On iOS and iPadOS … and potentially VisionOS, definitely. Most of us just don’t sit at our Macs (which we use for work all day) to game. We sit down at our large screen TVs, Atmos (or other) sound systems, and play on our console(s) cradled by our comfy couches and chairs.

Also, notably, the console community is relatively free of the endemic cheating the PC side nurtures. Let’s face it, the Mac market of gamers does not want to deal with the toxicity of the PC game market. They just opt out.

https://www.pcgamer.com/on-behalf-of-pc-gaming-sorry-about-all-those-cheaters-in-your-console-games/

9secondkox2

Great article. Been saying the same things for years. 

Apple, the richest company in the world, can easily be even better by taking desktop class gaming / high-end console level gaming seriously. Buy a AAA studio or three or start one, and consistently bring out a game every year that aims high. If it’s a hot, third parties would jump in. But acting like “those little gamer people” should be happy with outdated games, mobile games, etc. is not going anywhere. A literal waste of time. Gamers are some of the most discerning, critical people when it comes to the quality of their games. Even as a grown man, I really enjoy a well crafted, visually and audibly epic game. It’s a shame I can’t get a relevant one on my Mac and had to instead purchase a console from a competitor. 

Apple has the ability unlike any other to branch out and dominate the gaming business. They just seem to not care. Every so often it’s the same old throw a bone scenario and call it a day. 

The only thing that gives me a glimmer of hope that this changes is that the m3 GPU is supposed to be killer. At base level, it could be good enough for aaa games at high settings. At that point, it would make no sense to hold back anymore. Macs are flooding the market even in down years. It’s quite a user base to market to. Yes, Apple Silicon is still relatively new and the m3 and up base will take a year or so to really sell games, but the previous generations can handle lower and mid settings. 

I suspect apple would be shocked at how fast they become the gaming standard if they embraced it as hard as they did music. 

foregoneconclusion

Mobile gaming is the largest market now. It generates more revenue than PC/console gaming combined. So criticizing Apple Arcade for having a lot of titles that are mobile oriented is basically not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to gaming. Apple isn't behind the curve. It's the companies that are primarily in the PC/console space that are behind the curve. For example, when Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, what was the 2nd highest revenue generating franchise that they acquired? Not Diablo. Not Warcraft. Not Overwatch. Candy Crush was #2. Only Call of Duty brought in more $$ than a mobile title.

ooloo

Remember when these 2 guys, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, while working for some gaming company called Atari created a single-player version of Pong in 4 days?  Remember a game called Dark Castle?  Remember when Steve Jobs presented Halo at MacWorld 1999?  Bungie was one of the best game developers for Apple.  Remember Marathon?  Another amazing game developer for Apple was a small company called Blizzard.  Until they merged with Activision, the level of support for gaming on our beloved Macs was second to none.  Oh wait, remember when Microsoft stepped in and acquired Bungie and killed Halo on the Mac?  Remember when Microsoft stepped in and purchased Blizzard?  It's great that Apple loves music, movies and our wonderful creatives but ignoring gaming has been one of the biggest reasons we've seen a decline in Macintosh sales.  Removing Boot Camp and further ignoring the gaming market is short sighted for a company with the level of resources they have at their disposal.  Be brave Apple and acquire Sony or Nintendo and compete! 

baka-dubbs

freeassociate2 said:

(Shrugs) Nintendo seems to do just fine with their hardware choices. It’s a lack of commitment from devs and studios, not a lack hardware that’s bleeding edge.

Nintendo hasn't survived based on 3rd party support, its their 1st party games that have kept them going.  If you look at their top sellers, its almost exclusively Nintendo published games.  Apple does not have that.  That's why it needs to nurture 3rd parties, build an ecosystem/communication/developer support, etc.  Enabling Vulkan would be a quick way to make porting games much easier, vs forcing metal as your only option.  They really need their Xbox Live/Playstation Network type service if they want to truly compete. 

That being said, they will be perfectly fine not investing in gaming and raking in loads of cash from the App Store, so only Apple can say if its worth dedicating the resources to build that platform/support for 3rd party studio's, or buying a Studio like EA to have first party games.  

harperium

Steve Jobs didn't like gaming. That's the reason Apple doesn't support AAA games. It's really stupid. Apple needs to get with the times. iOS games are terrible - designed for kids, with blinking lights and beeps that sound like a casino.

The gaming industry generates more revenue than Hollywood. Apple is leaving money on the table, and forcing people like me to buy $6000 gaming PCs every few years, when I would happily buy a Mac Pro that could run games...

mayfly

avon b7 said:

mayfly said:

Apple has succeeded almost beyond belief by focusing on core competencies, avoiding "shiny object" distractions, and leveraging what they do best for maximum profits. And that's what they should continue doing. Apple has never been the dominant player in the gaming arena, and I don't see any benefit for Apple to jump into the chaos in that sector.

It has long been argued, with good reason IMO, that Apple's lack of commitment to gaming is a major reason why people rule out Macs as purchases. 

That isn't a good thing because it means you are deliberately underperforming in an area that holds massive economic potential.

The key here is not how well you are doing. The key is how much better you could be doing. 

The same thing happened with the original iMac launch. Widely lauded as a success, it was a case of massive underperforming for a variety of reasons. 

What you're suggesting is what the great investor Peter Lynch wrote, in his book "One Up on Wall Street," called "diWORSEification." Meaning venturing into business sectors where the company has little of no expertise, in the attempt to increase sales. It always leads to startup expenses, that keep piling up losses until the company abandons it. And that's exactly what happened with eWorld. And Newton. And the Apple xServe RAID.

tmay

Probably not any of my business, but it would appear that Apple is already generating massive profits from mobile, with little risk.

https://gamerhub.co.uk/gaming-industry-dominates-as-the-highest-grossing-entertainment-industry/

According to a report by SuperData Research, the global gaming market was valued at $159.3 billion in 2020. This includes revenue from console games, PC games, mobile games, and esports. To put that in perspective, the music industry was valued at $19.1 billion in 2020, while the movie industry was valued at $41.7 billion. That means the gaming industry is making more than three times as much money as the music industry and almost four times as much as the movie industry.

One of the main reasons for the gaming industry’s success is the increasing popularity of mobile gaming. Mobile games accounted for more than half of the global gaming market in 2020, with $86.1 billion in revenue. The rise of smartphones and tablets has made it easier for people to access and play games, and the increasing availability of high-speed internet has made it possible for mobile games to be more sophisticated and engaging.

Apple could do very well after "forcing people like me to buy $6000 gaming PCs every few years", by providing Apple Card financing for these purchases.

jimh2

In terms of games the vast majority of players use dedicated consoles. Makes no sense for Apple to pursue the fringe gamers who want dedicated rigs that also run other software. Were it something Apple wanted to do there is nothing stopping them from going all in on a gaming PC, but they obviously have zero interest in doing so. 

CheeseFreeze

It’s frustrating to purchase a Mac at a premium price and not being able to use it for gaming the way Windows is used. I miss an entire category of content (with my primary usage being productivity & content creation).

I agree with most points in this article although I don’t think opening up the Mac with GPU support makes sense. 

Apple could consider a new product: an M3 Max powered “Apple TV” under a different brand name, e.g “Apple HomeCenter” or whatever (hopefully with a better name ;-).
It could compete with Xbox and PlayStation, but the Apple way. For this it would need to have strong 1st party content, and subsidize developers porting their work to this device (+ with compatibility with macOS, potentially supporting separate online instances for players on controllers using HomeCenter and desktop/mouse users).
It could offer a more compelling subscription like Xbox and PlayStation.
Apple would need to consider selling the device with no profit margin to compete; < $499 and consider it being a vending machine of services.

mattinoz

jimh2 said:

In terms of games the vast majority of players use dedicated consoles. Makes no sense for Apple to pursue the fringe gamers who want dedicated rigs that also run other software. Were it something Apple wanted to do there is nothing stopping them from going all in on a gaming PC, but they obviously have zero interest in doing so. 

The vast majority would play on the device they have for other reasons given the chance. Either saving money or upgrade more often. 

avon b7

mayfly said:

avon b7 said:

mayfly said:

Apple has succeeded almost beyond belief by focusing on core competencies, avoiding "shiny object" distractions, and leveraging what they do best for maximum profits. And that's what they should continue doing. Apple has never been the dominant player in the gaming arena, and I don't see any benefit for Apple to jump into the chaos in that sector.

It has long been argued, with good reason IMO, that Apple's lack of commitment to gaming is a major reason why people rule out Macs as purchases. 

That isn't a good thing because it means you are deliberately underperforming in an area that holds massive economic potential.

The key here is not how well you are doing. The key is how much better you could be doing. 

The same thing happened with the original iMac launch. Widely lauded as a success, it was a case of massive underperforming for a variety of reasons. 

What you're suggesting is what the great investor Peter Lynch wrote, in his book "One Up on Wall Street," called "diWORSEification." Meaning venturing into business sectors where the company has little of no expertise, in the attempt to increase sales. It always leads to startup expenses, that keep piling up losses until the company abandons it. And that's exactly what happened with eWorld. And Newton. And the Apple xServe RAID.

Apple has already taken the decision. It is already in the gaming market. 

That means that your diversification point is irrelevant. 

The issue is on its commitment and implementation, not its decision to get into gaming. 

BTW, you were simply cherry picking your examples. Both eWorld and Newton were simply ahead of their time and purely business (not product strategy) led to their demise. The same applied to Apple cameras, printers etc. Apple wasn't in a position to keep that many lines open. 

You skipped over the success of iPods, headphones and the iPhone itself and the so called halo effect ("increased sales"). 

techconc

This article ought to be required reading for Apple's executive team.

"Apple could and should bring game development in-house to see what can really cook when the developer isn't worried about making Apple code work well enough compared to other platforms, but better. I've been banging this drum for years, but I think it's imperative these days. "

Absolutely.

"Apple should get out in front of this with compelling, original content. And if it's not willing to bootstrap its own first-party game development studio, I'd like to see Apple convince more game makers to really flex the technology to see what they can do in more meaningful ways than just porting existing titles to the Mac platform."

Bingo.

"Apple needs to offer a more compelling experience for Mac gamers on Arcade. Like in days of yore, there should be Mac-exclusive titles like Marathon was originally, or like Halo was going to be, or titles that really show off what macOS can do."

Amen.

Seriously, it's not rocket science. If Apple had any interest in addressing this problem, they'd take the steps mentioned above.  They simply don't know or don't care.  Possibly both. 

mayfly

avon b7 said:

mayfly said:

avon b7 said:

mayfly said:

Apple has succeeded almost beyond belief by focusing on core competencies, avoiding "shiny object" distractions, and leveraging what they do best for maximum profits. And that's what they should continue doing. Apple has never been the dominant player in the gaming arena, and I don't see any benefit for Apple to jump into the chaos in that sector.

It has long been argued, with good reason IMO, that Apple's lack of commitment to gaming is a major reason why people rule out Macs as purchases. 

That isn't a good thing because it means you are deliberately underperforming in an area that holds massive economic potential.

The key here is not how well you are doing. The key is how much better you could be doing. 

The same thing happened with the original iMac launch. Widely lauded as a success, it was a case of massive underperforming for a variety of reasons. 

What you're suggesting is what the great investor Peter Lynch wrote, in his book "One Up on Wall Street," called "diWORSEification." Meaning venturing into business sectors where the company has little of no expertise, in the attempt to increase sales. It always leads to startup expenses, that keep piling up losses until the company abandons it. And that's exactly what happened with eWorld. And Newton. And the Apple xServe RAID.

Apple has already taken the decision. It is already in the gaming market. 

That means that your diversification point is irrelevant. 

The issue is on its commitment and implementation, not its decision to get into gaming. 

BTW, you were simply cherry picking your examples. Both eWorld and Newton were simply ahead of their time and purely business (not product strategy) led to their demise. The same applied to Apple cameras, printers etc. Apple wasn't in a position to keep that many lines open. 

You skipped over the success of iPods, headphones and the iPhone itself and the so called halo effect ("increased sales"). 

eWorld was NOT ahead of its time. It was a lousy copy of AOL. Newton was NOT ahead of its time. It was a disaster for Apple, and rightly so, since it was a lousy product whose "features" became the butt of many, many jokes, even on late night TV.

I stand by my statement. Apple has no business in gaming other than selling apps. And they should avoid trying to make a car or a TV set as well.

danvm

9secondkox2 said:

Great article. Been saying the same things for years. 

Apple, the richest company in the world, can easily be even better by taking desktop class gaming / high-end console level gaming seriously. Buy a AAA studio or three or start one, and consistently bring out a game every year that aims high. If it’s a hot, third parties would jump in. But acting like “those little gamer people” should be happy with outdated games, mobile games, etc. is not going anywhere. A literal waste of time. Gamers are some of the most discerning, critical people when it comes to the quality of their games. Even as a grown man, I really enjoy a well crafted, visually and audibly epic game. It’s a shame I can’t get a relevant one on my Mac and had to instead purchase a console from a competitor. 

Apple has the ability unlike any other to branch out and dominate the gaming business. They just seem to not care. Every so often it’s the same old throw a bone scenario and call it a day. 

The only thing that gives me a glimmer of hope that this changes is that the m3 GPU is supposed to be killer. At base level, it could be good enough for aaa games at high settings. At that point, it would make no sense to hold back anymore. Macs are flooding the market even in down years. It’s quite a user base to market to. Yes, Apple Silicon is still relatively new and the m3 and up base will take a year or so to really sell games, but the previous generations can handle lower and mid settings. 

I suspect apple would be shocked at how fast they become the gaming standard if they embraced it as hard as they did music. 

If Apple had the ability to dominate in the gaming business, they already had done something. But the only thing we have seen from Apple is Apple Arcade and Apple TV as a gaming console, and both are behind the competition. They only thing Apple lead is with the App Store in iOS / iPad OS devices. 

And I haven't seen anything that points to the M3 being a killer in gaming.  Nvidia and AMD still the leader in gaming hardware.  Maybe Apple surprise us in the future.

danvm

foregoneconclusion said:

Mobile gaming is the largest market now. It generates more revenue than PC/console gaming combined. So criticizing Apple Arcade for having a lot of titles that are mobile oriented is basically not seeing the forest for the trees when it comes to gaming. Apple isn't behind the curve. It's the companies that are primarily in the PC/console space that are behind the curve. For example, when Microsoft bought Activision/Blizzard, what was the 2nd highest revenue generating franchise that they acquired? Not Diablo. Not Warcraft. Not Overwatch. Candy Crush was #2. Only Call of Duty brought in more $$ than a mobile title.

Apple success in mobile gaming doesn't change the fact that Apple customers is behing in dektop gaming.  Many of use would like to see Apple do better in desktop gaming.