I don't entirely understand why Apple doesn't try to get in on the gaming market. I think they could take back a huge chunk from the PC market if they went in this direction. I've heard it's because Steve Jobs is a pacifist who doesn't like the violence in so many games. Is there more to it than this?
Why won't Apple have games developed for it?
- Thread starter General Ma Chao
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Considering that we're in a world where multiple platform releases are not that uncommon, I don't see how it can be that much more expensive.
The new Intel macs definitely make it a lot easier to port, since it's roughly the same processor architecture and all. In just the past year, I've seen a lot more companies begin to include Mac versions into their releases. But it's a moot point, especially if Boot Camp and Cider get better with hardware.
lol @ razzle.
mac users are still quite the minority. so there's a small user base for devs to profit off. not much incentive. then most mac users i know have given up on mac as a gaming platform (LOL) long ago, and have other means to get their gaming fix.
but if you have an intel mac, fret not, cause if you put up with some random crashes, you can play pretty much any windows game under boot camp. granted, boot camp is not the most stable thing in the world, but i have never had a crash playing games in it. only crashes happened at random times during windows operation, then i had to hold F8 down when restarting and choose last known working configuration. some problems with usb ports, particularly my logic dongle screwing with some pc apps. so there's a little problem solving involved, but on my 17" MBP i can run bioshock at full with a buttery smooth framerate at 800x600, and a mostly buttery smooth framerate at 1200x800 (tho refracted surface animations seem to bog down a little, but player control stays smooth). crysis might be another story. haven't tried it yet.
mac users are still quite the minority. so there's a small user base for devs to profit off. not much incentive. then most mac users i know have given up on mac as a gaming platform (LOL) long ago, and have other means to get their gaming fix.
but if you have an intel mac, fret not, cause if you put up with some random crashes, you can play pretty much any windows game under boot camp. granted, boot camp is not the most stable thing in the world, but i have never had a crash playing games in it. only crashes happened at random times during windows operation, then i had to hold F8 down when restarting and choose last known working configuration. some problems with usb ports, particularly my logic dongle screwing with some pc apps. so there's a little problem solving involved, but on my 17" MBP i can run bioshock at full with a buttery smooth framerate at 800x600, and a mostly buttery smooth framerate at 1200x800 (tho refracted surface animations seem to bog down a little, but player control stays smooth). crysis might be another story. haven't tried it yet.
I forget the exact numbers, but if I recall correctly, a normal Mac games sells 20,000 copies, and a hit sells 200,000. I think that is about 10% or PC sales and 0.1% of total console sales for a game. I'm a mac user and wish they had more games on the Mac so I don't have to boot up my PC or buy an XBOX but it's hard to argue those numbers.
A number of reasons.
First, lower install base, it's less profitable.
Second, the de facto standard for games is DirectX now. There's no support for that on OSX, natch.
Third, the vast majority of Apple machines are laptops and all in one desktops, which have less powerful graphics cards, and the only ones that do have powerful graphics cards are Mac Pro desktops, which are expensive.
Fourth, and increasingly more importantly, Bootcamp. If you want to play games on a Mac, you can install Windows on it.
First, lower install base, it's less profitable.
Second, the de facto standard for games is DirectX now. There's no support for that on OSX, natch.
Third, the vast majority of Apple machines are laptops and all in one desktops, which have less powerful graphics cards, and the only ones that do have powerful graphics cards are Mac Pro desktops, which are expensive.
Fourth, and increasingly more importantly, Bootcamp. If you want to play games on a Mac, you can install Windows on it.
just want to point out that my MBP has a reasonably powerful graphics card. probably eclipsed by crysis, but at the time of its release last october it was capable of pulling good framerates at full settings on the new windows game i tried out on it (bioshock). maybe your standards are higher than mine, tho, i dunno. at 1920x1200 it admittedly chunked hard. 1200x800 was the max you could get good framerates out of, and i believe i had AA off.GloatingSwine said:
i can also run gtr2 with a full field of 30+ (maybe 40+)- some ridiculous number of cars, with full graphics, full physics and everything on. not a hitch.
so it's not the best, but very impressive for a mobile card. granted my computer cost just over 3grand.
Macs have very little upgradability unless you use a mac pro.
The all-in-ones and laptops are very hard to upgrade, and often their users don't need to.
As gaming computers need to be upgraded like every month, Macs are not a good choice.
The Mac Pro is one of the most upgradable computers available; with the exception of the processor itself, it is one of the easiest computers to modify, it quite literally snap-out, snap-in with every part of the computer, but there is still a limited selection of graphics cards a ram-modules which are compatible.
Also, the reason games weren't ported to Macs very often was because of the G5 cell-processor (same problem as the PS3,) which has now been replaced by intel duel-cores, probably increasing the likelyhood of porting games.
If not, you can always use bootcamp, which runs windows faster than most PCs.
The all-in-ones and laptops are very hard to upgrade, and often their users don't need to.
As gaming computers need to be upgraded like every month, Macs are not a good choice.
The Mac Pro is one of the most upgradable computers available; with the exception of the processor itself, it is one of the easiest computers to modify, it quite literally snap-out, snap-in with every part of the computer, but there is still a limited selection of graphics cards a ram-modules which are compatible.
Also, the reason games weren't ported to Macs very often was because of the G5 cell-processor (same problem as the PS3,) which has now been replaced by intel duel-cores, probably increasing the likelyhood of porting games.
If not, you can always use bootcamp, which runs windows faster than most PCs.
It's been a while, and I can't find the quote, but I once read something about how Apple (via Steve Jobs) didn't want their brands to be associated with gaming. This could be completely wrong though, as I can't find a source.General Ma Chao said:
Agreed. All good reasons. I think the biggest thing is that developing a game to run natively on a Mac requires having developers that can program/debug for them, and very few game shops have them. Hiring those people, and then doing all the actual work, for a much smaller audience, just doesn't make financial sense. That's why they generally just pass off the port to companies like Aspyr (who are well-versed at this) and the games are released months+ later.GloatingSwine said:
Seeing that Apple caters towards audio, graphics and design I find it quite surprising too, especially since Macintosh used to be an attractive gaming platform (waaay back, admittedly).
Although unsubstantiated, I think it could also be somewhat sensitive since porting to OS X is halfway through porting to GNU. Probably Apple doesn't want to be caught in the Windows/Linux crossfire.
A fixed platform is by no means a negative for developers, rather it's seen by many as a strong argument for going exclusive on a particular console.
DirectX is strong, certainly, but that's because the developers and hardware manufacturers have chosen to do that; they could easily choose OpenGL at any time if they thought it would be a better option.
OpenGL is more portable (eg PS3), so a developer targeting multiple platforms already have good reason to chose it over DirectX. Why OS X isn't a more usual target is somewhat suspect, to me at least.
The direct returns might be marginal, but it could possibly be an important audience; a lot of Mac users are in the media and/or creative content business. If you write the code with portability in mind from the outset, it really isn't all that much work porting it, so costs should be marginal. Of course, marginal costs for marginal gains sounds pretty unsexy if you're in it for the Big Bucks.
Although unsubstantiated, I think it could also be somewhat sensitive since porting to OS X is halfway through porting to GNU. Probably Apple doesn't want to be caught in the Windows/Linux crossfire.
A fixed platform is by no means a negative for developers, rather it's seen by many as a strong argument for going exclusive on a particular console.
DirectX is strong, certainly, but that's because the developers and hardware manufacturers have chosen to do that; they could easily choose OpenGL at any time if they thought it would be a better option.
OpenGL is more portable (eg PS3), so a developer targeting multiple platforms already have good reason to chose it over DirectX. Why OS X isn't a more usual target is somewhat suspect, to me at least.
The direct returns might be marginal, but it could possibly be an important audience; a lot of Mac users are in the media and/or creative content business. If you write the code with portability in mind from the outset, it really isn't all that much work porting it, so costs should be marginal. Of course, marginal costs for marginal gains sounds pretty unsexy if you're in it for the Big Bucks.
I've read that the biggest problem is that Macs almost always have integrated graphics processors instead of separate graphics processors. That means they generate graphics using the same processor resources which calculate all the other data - which is perfectly suited to rendering video, multimedia etc. because in those cases there are one or two resource-intensive operations going on at a time, between which the computer can easily divide its attention. But when running a game, whereas most gaming PCs have one piece of hardware generating visuals independently and the main CPU handling everything else, an integrated-graphics-card machine like a Mac gets a headache trying to keep the frame rate up while also calculating the trajectory of that bazooka shot and generating the sound and interpreting your mouse movements etc. etc.
Obviously I'm not a hardware expert, so plz forgive me if I've misrepresented something.
Obviously I'm not a hardware expert, so plz forgive me if I've misrepresented something.
Pretty sure most desktop Macs now have dedicated graphics cards like a PC, but an iMac is NOT easy to upgrade (I think opening up your iMac is verbotten under warranty terms, too, only an Apple-certified tech can do it). If you want good upgradability, you need to get... Mac Pro, is it? The really, really expensive ones with more power than even the most demanding gamer probably needs. You can still only use Apple-certified graphics cards in OS X, though. Go ahead and stick something else in there, but it won't work unless you run a different OS.
Apple does not make a machine that appeals to gamers, because there's nothing between the iMac and the Mac Pro in terms of power and price. If they made something more affordable than the Pro but MUCH more upgradable than the iMac, then they'd be able to cater to gamers, but right now, there's nothing to fill that gap.
Bootcamp probably doesn't help too much either, because with a copy of Windows, you're all set for gaming, software-wise. There's less motivation for someone to port Windows games to OS X if people can just buy the Windows game and play it on their Mac anyway. Of course, Bootcamp isn't perfect, some games throw a fit if you try and play them in Bootcamp (I can't play STALKER on my iMac, only on my Windows laptop... same with Episode One, for some reason, though all other Valve games run fine).
I've also read that Apple has sort of a non-commital, lazy attitude towards getting games on their hardware. Valve has more or less said that Apple shows less interest in putting Steam on OS X than is needed for [Valve] to feel comfortable working on such a project (though some stuff I also read said they wanted money from Apple for making OS X Steam, that wouldn't help). Developers probably aren't too confident about working with a company that has an attitude like this, especially since Microsoft's attitude is almost the opposite.
The fact that they ran on PowerPC for so long probably doesn't help, either. Every PowerPC Mac I've ever used has been a pain in the ass... "HEY, I'm busy! Leave me alone! No, I'm busy! Can a PC render your project this well? I don't care if it can do two things at once! DON'T TOUCH ME! HEY! Fine, I'm gonna crash, now, and you'll have to start over! Told you not to touch me..." It's probably much easier to port a game between two operating systems if they both use the same architecture. I dunno, I'm no expert.
Apple does not make a machine that appeals to gamers, because there's nothing between the iMac and the Mac Pro in terms of power and price. If they made something more affordable than the Pro but MUCH more upgradable than the iMac, then they'd be able to cater to gamers, but right now, there's nothing to fill that gap.
Bootcamp probably doesn't help too much either, because with a copy of Windows, you're all set for gaming, software-wise. There's less motivation for someone to port Windows games to OS X if people can just buy the Windows game and play it on their Mac anyway. Of course, Bootcamp isn't perfect, some games throw a fit if you try and play them in Bootcamp (I can't play STALKER on my iMac, only on my Windows laptop... same with Episode One, for some reason, though all other Valve games run fine).
I've also read that Apple has sort of a non-commital, lazy attitude towards getting games on their hardware. Valve has more or less said that Apple shows less interest in putting Steam on OS X than is needed for [Valve] to feel comfortable working on such a project (though some stuff I also read said they wanted money from Apple for making OS X Steam, that wouldn't help). Developers probably aren't too confident about working with a company that has an attitude like this, especially since Microsoft's attitude is almost the opposite.
The fact that they ran on PowerPC for so long probably doesn't help, either. Every PowerPC Mac I've ever used has been a pain in the ass... "HEY, I'm busy! Leave me alone! No, I'm busy! Can a PC render your project this well? I don't care if it can do two things at once! DON'T TOUCH ME! HEY! Fine, I'm gonna crash, now, and you'll have to start over! Told you not to touch me..." It's probably much easier to port a game between two operating systems if they both use the same architecture. I dunno, I'm no expert.
Perhaps they are trying to appeal more to the business industry, marketing their computers as devices for mature people, rather than gaming consoles for kids. They already make so much money with their products (ei: the iphone, well made, buta rippoff) they really don't need to be in the games industry. Besides, think about it, Apple is already stuck so far up themselves that there is a good chance that their games would be accompanied with too much hype. They might be good if they decide to spend some of the access 100 millions they have on them. Apple is not bad, the people are just so full of themselves.
Apple has a long history of hostility to game development on the Mac, starting with (a) never creating a joystick standard for the Mac (the Apple II came with game controllers), and then (b) refusing to provide support for lo-res color graphics modes (320x200x256 colors was the resolution that allowed the explosion of games under DOS, including Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Ultima Underworld, Arena, etc.). Apple briefly tried to get its act together with "Game Sprockets" (and the lamentable "QuickDraw 3D") but this was all tossed out with the move to OS X.
DirectX isn't the problem. There are compatibility tools available to developers (essentially libraries that emulate DirectX cross platform), and in any event, no non-Microsoft platforms uses DirectX -- so PS2, PS3, PSP, Wii etc. are all rewriting their 3D code from platform to platform. Many of the top game libraries (Renderware, Torque, Unreal) are, essentially, cross platform.
So it's mostly a matter of history and target audience. Most PCs sold to home users are sold as games machines. Most Macs sold to home users are sold as workstations of some kind (home video, digital photography). So not only are Macs a small part of the market, the fraction of Macs that will be used to play games is even smaller.
That said, most successful AAA titles do get ported to the Mac ... eventually :-/
DirectX isn't the problem. There are compatibility tools available to developers (essentially libraries that emulate DirectX cross platform), and in any event, no non-Microsoft platforms uses DirectX -- so PS2, PS3, PSP, Wii etc. are all rewriting their 3D code from platform to platform. Many of the top game libraries (Renderware, Torque, Unreal) are, essentially, cross platform.
So it's mostly a matter of history and target audience. Most PCs sold to home users are sold as games machines. Most Macs sold to home users are sold as workstations of some kind (home video, digital photography). So not only are Macs a small part of the market, the fraction of Macs that will be used to play games is even smaller.
That said, most successful AAA titles do get ported to the Mac ... eventually :-/
Apple makes little starts and just starts to get stuff together and then leaves its developers out to dry. They would need something on the level of DirectX and a full time development team, and while they have some of the components, they have never showed the slightest inclination to care. I think they keep thinking that if they are successful enough, people will just write for them, but their tools are a bit behind and there is no developer support.