6 ms·

Much less, much much less. Imagine paying $4,999 USD for a device from a company with $2.8T market cap and blaming anybody except Apple for the drawbacks of you

by sevagh 3y ago

Much less, much much less. Imagine paying $4,999 USD for a device from a company with $2.8T market cap and blaming anybody except Apple for the drawbacks of your platform.

xcv123 3y ago
> Imagine paying $4,999 USD for a device from a company 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.
- TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
  But that's the trouble: there's more than enough hardware in a Studio to game with. Saying that people who need a "media" computer don't care about games is silly. I used to run $5,000 PC's for CAD/FEA, and you better believe I ran games on it after hours. I've had high-end Mac laptops for software development work for 10 years now. I keep buying the ones with GPU's. They ALL suck for gaming. Not for lack of hardware! My $4,000 Intel MBP with a Vega 20 runs Elder Scrolls Online (NOT a demanding game) at 720p and 30 FPS. It runs BETTER if I force it to use the internal Intel "GPU". So I bought a $700 PC which runs the game at 4K, "high" settings, and an unwavering 60FPS. A friend just bought an M2 Studio. It manages to run the game at 4K, but < 30 FPS. On the fastest computer in the world, currently! I have another friend who boots Windows on a cheese grater Mac Pro to play World of Tanks. Lots of people WANT to play games on Macs, but wind up moving back to Windows. 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.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    Fair enough except for your example. ESO does not support M1/M2. It's running on Rosetta. Bethesda officially do not support M2 so obviously they haven't made any effort to make it run efficiently on an M2. How is that Apples fault? The hardware is there for anyone to use but Apple can not force developers to use it.
    - TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
      How did Windows become the de facto gaming platform? Microsoft made easier-to-use API's, and then subsidized developers to use it. I don't program against it, but it seems that Vulkan and Metal are reasonable to use. It's the second part I want Apple to do now.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - xcv123 3y ago
        Neither of those two reasons are why Windows became the de facto gaming platform. 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-jumped-even-though-pc-sales-fell-for-the-sixth-consecutive-quarter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/apples-mac-market-share-jump...
        TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
        Gaming in the 90's started out on OpenGL, which was and is cross platform. Ports for Quake were being made for things like SGI workstations, because it was relatively straightforward. Microsoft headed off further development in a cross-platform gaming environment by creating a Windows-only API, and making sure developers used it, with lots and lots of money. Windows became the de facto platform because Microsoft used their monopoly to kill off the burgeoning threat of an open ecosystem. If it hadn't done this, Macs and Linux could have been viable gaming platforms, despite their relative marketshares.
        deleted 3y ago
  - xcv123 3y ago
    > I have another friend who boots Windows on a cheese grater Mac Pro to play World of Tanks. What has Apple done to prevent the WOT developer releasing it on Mac?
kelsey9876543 3y ago
Anyone that can afford a professional mac setup already has a gaming setup if they want to play games.
astrange 3y ago
The platform is fine. It can play Windows games using WINE just like Linux can.
- vetinari 3y ago
  * As long as the games are 64-bit and while Rosetta is still available.
  - astrange 3y ago
    No, Win32 works too. If Rosetta stops being available there's always qemu.
    - vetinari 3y ago
      Win32 doesn't work on M1 and newer.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      qemu is dog slow, and it's barely working enough to get Windows 7 x86 to boot on a M2 (not to mention that the UTM guest tools are mostly broken, so no acceleration anywhere).
- Alupis 3y ago
  That's... not fine. 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...
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Games are usually not native. They usually create a window and render to the entire viewport insted of using the OS's standard UI framework.
    - xcv123 3y ago
Razengan 3y ago
If you're judging how much sympathy people "deserve" by what they spend their own money on, you deserve even less. 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.
- lukeschlather 3y ago
  I think you're missing some nuances of the conversation here. A lot of Apple buyers celebrate the fact that Apple intentionally prevents interoperability with large swathes of software. So if someone is complaining that software doesn't work on an Apple product, they don't "deserve sympathy" because they've deliberately chosen a product where that is ostensibly a selling point.
  - simplify 3y ago
    What? Who is "celebrating" that Apple prevents interoperability? Unless you're saying that buying a macbook is equivalent to celebrating all of Apple's decisions, a clearly false equivalency?
    - abenga 3y ago
      Every time the EU forces Apple to open up some of their platform (USB C, alternative app stores, etc) there's a top comment in the thread saying how the new change makes Apple platforms somehow "ickier", that they chose Apple because of the walled garden-ness that somehow makes it safer, and so on.
starttoaster 3y ago
Apple's absolute top end models might go for $5,000, but then again, have you bought gaming computer components lately? I can't imagine I spent far off of $3000 for my gaming computer all things taken into consideration (besides peripherals of course.) I only have not attempted to tally up the cost because I fear it would make me sick. Without actually listing a real drawback to using the platform besides "software providers decided not to support the platform," you come off as one of those drones that mindlessly hate on Apple products only because you don't want to pay for them. And to be clear, I'm not even your supposed opposition, in that I don't even own any Apple products besides an iPhone SE (which are notoriously cheaper than flagship Android phones.) I just find the Apple hating bickering to be about as childish as the Playstation vs Xbox console argument. 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.
- Panzer04 3y ago
  You can get a very competent gaming machine for 1k, especially usd. That gets you apple's bottom end laptop, if that. It's not comparable.
  - starttoaster 3y ago
    You get a budget gaming machine for 1k these days, if that. The GPU almost steals your 1k budget by itself. Apple's new top end Mac Mini goes for $1300 and has a 10 core M2 Pro with a 16 core GPU, 16GB memory, and a 512GB SSD. More than enough to play Counter Strike 2 if Valve decided to support the platform. It's not comparable but not as outrageous as people say. 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.
asdff 3y ago
macbook air is like the same price as a comparable dell

by sevagh 3y ago

Much less, much much less. Imagine paying $4,999 USD for a device from a company with $2.8T market cap and blaming anybody except Apple for the drawbacks of your platform.

xcv123 3y ago

> Imagine paying $4,999 USD for a device from a company 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.

TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
But that's the trouble: there's more than enough hardware in a Studio to game with. Saying that people who need a "media" computer don't care about games is silly. I used to run $5,000 PC's for CAD/FEA, and you better believe I ran games on it after hours. I've had high-end Mac laptops for software development work for 10 years now. I keep buying the ones with GPU's. They ALL suck for gaming. Not for lack of hardware! My $4,000 Intel MBP with a Vega 20 runs Elder Scrolls Online (NOT a demanding game) at 720p and 30 FPS. It runs BETTER if I force it to use the internal Intel "GPU". So I bought a $700 PC which runs the game at 4K, "high" settings, and an unwavering 60FPS. A friend just bought an M2 Studio. It manages to run the game at 4K, but < 30 FPS. On the fastest computer in the world, currently! I have another friend who boots Windows on a cheese grater Mac Pro to play World of Tanks. Lots of people WANT to play games on Macs, but wind up moving back to Windows. 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.
- xcv123 3y ago
  Fair enough except for your example. ESO does not support M1/M2. It's running on Rosetta. Bethesda officially do not support M2 so obviously they haven't made any effort to make it run efficiently on an M2. How is that Apples fault? The hardware is there for anyone to use but Apple can not force developers to use it.
  - TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
    How did Windows become the de facto gaming platform? Microsoft made easier-to-use API's, and then subsidized developers to use it. I don't program against it, but it seems that Vulkan and Metal are reasonable to use. It's the second part I want Apple to do now.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - xcv123 3y ago
      Neither of those two reasons are why Windows became the de facto gaming platform. 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-jumped-even-though-pc-sales-fell-for-the-sixth-consecutive-quarter.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/11/apples-mac-market-share-jump...
      - TheRealDunkirk 3y ago
        Gaming in the 90's started out on OpenGL, which was and is cross platform. Ports for Quake were being made for things like SGI workstations, because it was relatively straightforward. Microsoft headed off further development in a cross-platform gaming environment by creating a Windows-only API, and making sure developers used it, with lots and lots of money. Windows became the de facto platform because Microsoft used their monopoly to kill off the burgeoning threat of an open ecosystem. If it hadn't done this, Macs and Linux could have been viable gaming platforms, despite their relative marketshares.
        deleted 3y ago
- xcv123 3y ago
  > I have another friend who boots Windows on a cheese grater Mac Pro to play World of Tanks. What has Apple done to prevent the WOT developer releasing it on Mac?

kelsey9876543 3y ago

Anyone that can afford a professional mac setup already has a gaming setup if they want to play games.

astrange 3y ago

The platform is fine. It can play Windows games using WINE just like Linux can.

vetinari 3y ago
* As long as the games are 64-bit and while Rosetta is still available.
- astrange 3y ago
  No, Win32 works too. If Rosetta stops being available there's always qemu.
  - vetinari 3y ago
    Win32 doesn't work on M1 and newer.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    qemu is dog slow, and it's barely working enough to get Windows 7 x86 to boot on a M2 (not to mention that the UTM guest tools are mostly broken, so no acceleration anywhere).
Alupis 3y ago
That's... not fine. 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...
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Games are usually not native. They usually create a window and render to the entire viewport insted of using the OS's standard UI framework.
  - xcv123 3y ago

Razengan 3y ago

If you're judging how much sympathy people "deserve" by what they spend their own money on, you deserve even less. 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.

lukeschlather 3y ago
I think you're missing some nuances of the conversation here. A lot of Apple buyers celebrate the fact that Apple intentionally prevents interoperability with large swathes of software. So if someone is complaining that software doesn't work on an Apple product, they don't "deserve sympathy" because they've deliberately chosen a product where that is ostensibly a selling point.
- simplify 3y ago
  What? Who is "celebrating" that Apple prevents interoperability? Unless you're saying that buying a macbook is equivalent to celebrating all of Apple's decisions, a clearly false equivalency?
  - abenga 3y ago
    Every time the EU forces Apple to open up some of their platform (USB C, alternative app stores, etc) there's a top comment in the thread saying how the new change makes Apple platforms somehow "ickier", that they chose Apple because of the walled garden-ness that somehow makes it safer, and so on.

starttoaster 3y ago

Apple's absolute top end models might go for $5,000, but then again, have you bought gaming computer components lately? I can't imagine I spent far off of $3000 for my gaming computer all things taken into consideration (besides peripherals of course.) I only have not attempted to tally up the cost because I fear it would make me sick. Without actually listing a real drawback to using the platform besides "software providers decided not to support the platform," you come off as one of those drones that mindlessly hate on Apple products only because you don't want to pay for them. And to be clear, I'm not even your supposed opposition, in that I don't even own any Apple products besides an iPhone SE (which are notoriously cheaper than flagship Android phones.) I just find the Apple hating bickering to be about as childish as the Playstation vs Xbox console argument. 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.

Panzer04 3y ago
You can get a very competent gaming machine for 1k, especially usd. That gets you apple's bottom end laptop, if that. It's not comparable.
- starttoaster 3y ago
  You get a budget gaming machine for 1k these days, if that. The GPU almost steals your 1k budget by itself. Apple's new top end Mac Mini goes for $1300 and has a 10 core M2 Pro with a 16 core GPU, 16GB memory, and a 512GB SSD. More than enough to play Counter Strike 2 if Valve decided to support the platform. It's not comparable but not as outrageous as people say. 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.

asdff 3y ago

macbook air is like the same price as a comparable dell