|
|
|
|
|
|
by zer0zzz
10 days ago
|
|
|
> It matters because if Apple embraced Vulkan it would give more market share to one standard API for non-Windows platforms. How does this actually help Apple customers have a better experience in some unique way that live translation to Metal does not? Runtime GPU compilers already do plenty of runtime translation; having worked on several I could be convinced having a simpler interop layer would make things smoother but your argument comes across as ideological more than about shipping product. > Their strategy trying to push proprietary solutions simply doesnt work when their OS have 2% of PC gaming market share. Hardly anyone one uses their proprietary solution (Metal) directly. But that doesn't mean Vulkan is going to be some panacea of gamer/game-dev adoption. > Apple announced game porting toolkit 3 years ago and no one uses it. Well, unless Apple fund ports as PR stunts. While I agree its not that widely used for porting actual games, I think a lot more people probably do use D3DMetal to run Windows games on mac. |
|
|
By decoupling the support for Windows games from Apple's whimsical downstream release cycle, obviously. Proton would build perfectly fine on macOS with proper DXVK support, enabling the "same day" support patches that the Steam Deck and Steam Frame enjoy. There would be no need to wait to play games like Arc Raiders because all you'd need to do is update your Proton runtime. Users would get have more flexible options for playing new games that Apple doesn't support with GPTK point releases.
> But that doesn't mean Vulkan is going to be some panacea of gamer/game-dev adoption.
They can perfectly well support both APIs. If Apple wants to have a mobile-first rendering API on their desktop, fine, but it shouldn't hamstring the other features of a computer like eGPU support or basic third-party drivers like Mesa. There's no reason it would.