Mac users are voluntarily in the walled garden of a _trillion dollar company_, it's a bit different from Linux.
I can think of many reasons why it would never happen but it sure would be nice. Not that I haven't been voting against Mac games with my wallet for years, I've had a Mac to get shit done with and a rotating set of consoles to play games on since about 2000, and very occasionally bought a point-and-click adventure for the Mac.
* Apple has billions of dollars and a hierarchy of decision-makers who could prioritize the R&D and implementation of making "gaming on Mac" a reality
* Linux is a distributed, community project without billions of dollars or top-down decision-makers who can unilaterally prioritize making "gaming on Linux" a reality
I'd say Valve is exactly that. Valve pays many developers their salary who are responsible for making almost all single player games work on Linux via proton (wine, dxvk, vkd3d). Although they do push their changes upstream.
No it's not. Valve is just a member of the community. It cannot for distributions to adopt anything. Valve cannot prevent kernel developers from making it difficult for them to improve gaming on Linux. Valve just does its own thing and offers up its work. They cannot force anything into Linux like Apple can with its OS.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Steam Runtime is considered a bit of a mess on the technical end; Valve used to only test it with Ubuntu LTS, which caused plenty of issues for those on other distros or on newer versions of even Ubuntu.
IIRC Arch literally comes with a package whose sole job is to substitute certain steam runtime libraries that are known to cause conflict problems when used, otherwise you get fun X Window errors (or whatever equivalent you have for those on Wayland).
1. Apple has multiple teams of well paid engineers to solve any problem that arises. There's a lot more money in the game supporting Mac than Linux.
2. Apple has been shown to be hostile towards game development and make active decisions to make it harder to port to them, whereas Linix's most hostile issues arise from the proprietary nature of games vs. the open source nature of Linux (e.g. Package management, DRM, etc).
3. Linux makes concessions on its philosophies for games while Apple makes ultimatums. You can't ever trust that your game on Apple will work in 5 years, at least if you were developing in the 2010's. Meanwhile there are proprietary ways to deliver your game if you want to launch on Linux (not as sure about DRM but I've heard of solutions that simply haven't had mass adoption yet).
As great as WINE can be, it's not native. Apple has gone out of their way to prevent you from enjoying games on their systems.
And who do the users blame? Game makers - not Apple...
How, by having a different OS? Sorry about that I guess.
(If it had native Vulkan it wouldn't matter. The most effective strategy, the one Microsoft uses, is to buy all the game studios.)
> And who do the users blame? Game makers - not Apple...
Calling Valve a game maker is a stretch; as a company they're famously unwilling to actually make games. See gaben's allergy to the number 3.
> (If it had native Vulkan it wouldn't matter. The most effective strategy, the one Microsoft uses, is to buy all the game studios.)
By making their OS easy to target by game makers. There's no good excuse - Apple has access to the same graphics pipelines as everyone else. XPlat game engines have boiled it down to mostly a checkbox these days... so where's OSX? Apple has a lot of work to do before that's a reality.
> Calling Valve a game maker is a stretch;
You can't be serious, are you? Valve's titles are among the most popular games in the history of games. They may make most of their money through Steam, but to say Valve doesn't make games is ridiculous.
That wasn't even the point - Apple users will blame the actual studios/developers for not supporting OSX when the blame lies at Apple's feet.
Billions in annual profit, zero f's given about gaming on their platform. It's a choice - and one Apple users need to comprehend. Apple doesn't care.
There's more to game support than just graphics API.
Apple chooses to make game support on OSX hard - and shocker... you don't get games supporting OSX. Who can we blame? Apple...
Just like Apple chooses to make Linux kernel support hard on M1/M2 and leaves it entirely up to volunteers to make it work. Who do you blame? The Kernel developers or Apple?
You can complain that they don’t support third party low-level frameworks, sure. But they definitely make it easy and inviting to support their homegrown solutions
Valve is not a normal company; there's no hierarchy and they're only capable of doing things if someone at the company decides to pay attention to it.
Do you remember what happened to TF2? It first degraded into an item trading game, then they abandoned it for years and it was full of bots. There's no reason Overwatch and Apex should've replaced it except that they stopped fighting for it.
Counter-Strike is still one of the most-played games ever. CS:GO had an average of almost 1 million daily players while AAA Games like CoD Warzone hover around 200-500k.
DOTA/DOTA2 also rakes it in. They also have many very successful single-player games. Valve is a wildly successful game company - they just don't do the "yearly release" dance...
IDK anything about TF2 - but bots or not, 100k active daily players is nothing to sneeze at for a 16 year old game.
They are indeed the premier online game store - yes... but saying they are not a game developer is absurd. They don't release a new title every year, but when they do, it's a huge hit.
They fixed it again after people sassed them enough about it, but it was always a better game than Overwatch and there's no reason people should've been tricked into playing that.
(Though, I don't know if the people on right now are actually playing TF2 or just trading hats.)
Aside from a subset of Android devices, what platform has Vulkan as the default API?
Windows/XBox has DirectX. Playstation has GNMX. Macs/iOS Devices have Metal. Nintendo uses NVN.
Though, for Windows it matters more what the GPU vendor wants you to use. Don't remember what that is atm.
Vulkan is notable as being new (doesn't have legacy baggage OpenGL and DirectX have), is natively cross-platform, and is often more performant than other options for modern games.
Windows ships with DirectX. Your graphics card's software package can add support for other APIs.
So the situation is much less different between DirectX and Vulkan than you make it sound.
Not sure what you mean by that. Never mind.
As I said the vast majority of games. For example Minecraft is not a native Windows application in any way. It just creates a window and then renders the entire contents of the window itself instead of using win32 to make an interface.
That is not the case. Minecraft is probably the only major game that runs on the JVM.
Even a console application (no GUI) depends on operating system APIs.
That's like saying you can't run Firefox without freetype. Requiring a dependency doesn't make you no longer native.
>Even a console application (no GUI) depends on operating system APIs.
But the same API can be handled by different operating systems or libraries.
At this point you're just trolling.
Take notepad.exe and try to run it on Linux. It wont run because its Windows native. That's a native application. Same as 99% of games that aren't JVM based.
Translating between rendering APIs is not really the problem. The GPU design is more different than the API is.
For example, VK_EXT_descriptor_buffer is a critical one, and there are more: https://www.khronos.org/blog/vk-ext-descriptor-buffer. And MoltenVK doesn't support Vulkan 1.3.
Here's the most basic thing about purchases: People spend money on what they think is worth it. So the millions of Mac users decided the drawbacks of Windows/PC weren't worth the money.
And yes, I consider your comment to be childish bickering primarily because you don't have another argument besides "their product is more expensive than it's worth comparing hardware to hardware." Apple users understand that they're actually paying a premium for the software (the operating system), as well as the designed and usually fetching exterior (which to be fair does look nice, and I tend to prefer Macbook charging ports over Dell's old barrel ports.) Which, there is something to be said about an operating system that decided they don't want to run Java anymore. I'll grant that their software might have merit. Java web start apps are the bane of my enterprise existence.
It's not comparable.
But again, you're still thinking in terms of money here. Where the problem isn't with how much the computer costs. It's completely irrelevant, actually. The problem for Mac users is that the software providers in question in this discussion don't want to support MacOS, which is a decision totally on them. I have no strong opinions against their decision to not support them if the user base just isn't there. There's no doubt that there are tons of MacOS users, they just might not be users that intend to game on those computers the majority of the time. But I do feel empathy for Mac gamers, as that was historically the opinion of game studios refusing to support Linux machines. And to be honest, it's still the case that Linux users are second class citizens when it comes to games that require an anticheat to run (many online FPS games fall into this category.) None of the big anticheat providers want to port their software to run on Linux.
You can play almost any game on ancient GeForce 1080 (i do) with decent fps, except Starfield and maybe some other poorly optimized titles. On windows, that is.
You can also play almost anything on SteamDeck (15W TDP max) on linux ($400 before discounts).
You can't really play 3/4 of game catalog on MacBook Pro M1Pro or newer ($2000+)
> You can't really play 3/4 of game catalog on MacBook Pro M1Pro or newer ($2000+)
That’s what started this whole conversation actually… We are talking about the choice of game studios choosing to not support MacOS in their games.
A high spec Mac Mini is $1299 USD (10 core CPU, 16 core GPU, 16 GB).
Anyone paying $4,999 for a Mac Studio/Pro is doing media creation for work and doesn't give a fuck about games or will have a separate console/PC for that. Those are workstations, not for gaming.
IMO, this terrible situation is on Apple. They have the resources to fix this ecosystem, and buy a seat at the table, the same way Microsoft has, at so many tables.
Microsofts market share was nearly 100% in the 90s and that's how they became the de facto gaming platform. Because it was the de facto PC platform. Apple was a much smaller company and nearly went bankrupt in the 90s. Microsoft dominated for reasons unrelated to gaming and the legacy continued. Bill Gates was in court for antitrust violations. Apple focused on other niches besides gaming just to survive and avoid bankruptcy.
Mac only has 8% market share, hence Bethesda not caring about Mac. The market is just too small. Even if Apple had the worst possible graphics API, everyone would release games for Mac if it had the biggest market share.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/apples-mac-market-share-jump...
What has Apple done to prevent the WOT developer releasing it on Mac?
We are not talking here about people trying to uplift themselves or humanity around them, and get/give access to education, Internet, computing, etc. We're talking about people who dropped 2 grands to buy into an luxurious anti-freedom walled garden.