[metmac]

I think this response lacks the context of the current state of the video game industry. In my mind this is no different than nVidia providing white glove engineering support and optimizations for titles to run on their GPUS.

There is a reason nVidia has generally won the consumer GPU arms race over the years over AMD. They go out of their way to support studios and titles, compared to what AMD does imho.

It shows that Apple recognizes it needs to lower the barrier of entry for studios to considering targeting Macs. Because compared to the larger gaming market most studios have very little incentive to build and maintain this because Mac’s could account for 1-3% of your player base. Is that worth 1-5 ICs worth of time if you are a small studio. Probably not.

[goosedragons]

They also need to focus more on backwards compatibility. If Apple continually makes most of my library unplayable as they have done repeatedly (Classic, Rosetta 1, 32bit) then I wouldn't trust them with gaming. It seems moving forward PlayStation and Xbox are making it a priority, it already was on PC and I don't think Apple will ever have anything with the draw of Nintendo that could surmount that.

[sylens]

This is a huge draw in PC gaming. People love going back to old games and modding them or updating them to run better. Heck, didn't Portal (a 2007 game) just get an RTX update?

[whizzter]

As for AMD v Nvidia, imho it's more often a matter of AMD drivers being buggy even if their hardware seems to be almost on par in terms of performance, also right now NVidia has ridden high on both blockchain and now AI trends thanks to CUDA being propietary.

And the third paragraph is my point, porting would've been trivial instead of requiring another engineer if they had supported more standard API's, but they refused and now they're hedging their bets on another manufacturers API. It's just such a roundabout way of saying that they feel the pain without going back and fixing the basics.