Now that Macs have more graphics power than the PS5, it’s necessary for Overwatch to be ported to MacOS. Many people are buying next-gen Macs play games and would not mind paying extra for a Mac version. It makes no sense why Overwatch should be on the Nintendo Switch, but not on the powerful next-gen Macs. Any M1-based Mac can run a native port of Overwatch at a high framerate.
It actually make sense that Overwatch is on Switch. Every Switch users will likely game on it, not all Apple users will game on their Apple devices.
Picking an Apple device for gaming isn’t the best idea, let alone you may save more cash from not buying their products which are usually overpriced compared to standard versions of their parts. They might actually lose more money into supporting it overall because many people don’t game on Apple devices anyway.
Apple is a brand for look, class and flexing. It’s also relevant for music and art stuff if you ask me, but if we talking gaming, might wanna switch to something more traditional to it and much simplier to use really for devs.
11 Likes
You make a good point, but way more people own Apple devices than Switches. Many professional mac users also game on the side. Mac users are also far more likely to purchase in-game items compared to Switch users.
3 Likes
Windows’ DirectX APIs are incredibly popular with game developers. They don’t have any equivalents on macOS, which makes it harder for developers to port their games.
Source:
https://www.howtogeek.com/295231/can-you-play-video-games-on-a-mac/
It sounds like a lot more work for a relatively tiny player base. It might just not be cost-efficient.
13 Likes
So I looked some stuff up. Macs apparently account for a little under 8% of the total number of computers world wide. (7.5%) That’s still a lot but that also accounts for older macs that might not be able to run Overwatch that well. Conversely, Chrome OS has a 10.8% share.
Not all macs do though. Particularly older ones.
But not all do. I have to imagine that most Macs used for professional work are used by the sort of people who could also afford to buy a separate PC for gaming if they were really invested to that hobby.
Is it really necessary though? To capture a fraction of a fraction of a user base? When the team isn’t given a lot of resources and is already looking at delays for Overwatch 2?
1 Like
That’s the most Based take I’ve seen.
Instead of numbers, crunch them in playerbase%. Apple gamers are likely not even more than the 10-20% MAU. If you account that, switch users likely have more MAU-gamers than Apple MAU-gamers. Is it worth to justify making a game with no equivalent to Windows platform, which is very very wide and easy to catch for devs, while the Apple platform requires double the effort on a relatively small MAU-game like Overwatch.
It would make sense for WoW, for Overwatch, not much really. Now take forth my playerbase% for Apple-MAU gamers, and force it to the overall% of the marketshare of computers, you’re prob looking at the 1-10% overall people on that, and EVEN less on recent MAC computers.
Also the “Apple users are likely to buy more store purchases”. I don’t wanna meme it, but I find that my pals with Apple devices are usually the most broke people I’ve seen and they only buy fancy brands and get broke again for like 3 weeks.
1 Like
Only reason for games are most on windows is because its native api between game code and internal render code engine (DX, OGL, Vulkan). Windows is only platform that implements a decent native code to communicate with these apis. That make game development more easy.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure MacOS supports a Vulkan variant though.
The problem isn’t with render system itself, its how its is implemented on code, thanks for microsoft, we have many strict rules to write code for windows, so the reason, most of stuf written for windows are more confortable to understand
1 Like
You own a switch to play games, you own a Mac if you don’t know any better. It doesn’t matter how many units exists. The reason you purchased a Mac in the first place was not to play a game on it.
Mac, last I checked had between 5 to 8 percent of the leisure market. Actiblizz would be spending many monies for very little return on investment.
But hey, maybe a few of the devs will get all PTSD and require Blizzard to move away from PC because it offends them. Then you may get your Mac support.
1 Like
Windows users currently make up more of the market in part because they have more ports. Perhaps this paradigm could be shifted with Macs getting game support.
1 Like
Uh, no.
For the longest time, back about a decade to a decade and a half ago, Mac was so preprietary that you couldn’t develop unless you had written permission in triplicate with 3 “geniuses” helping you create things.
3 Likes
I can count all of the games with Vulcan support in the fingers of 1 hand.
1 Like
apple will claim anything but the modern mac is arm based and its processor and gpu wasnt designed for gaming at all and in reality overwatch would likely cause a thermal throttle
1 Like
The new Macbooks handle AAA titles like Battlefield just fine though.
1 Like
you realize though battlefield is a terrible game
1 Like
I appreciate your candidness, and your implied concession that the next-gen Macbooks can handle AAA titles (albeit at high framerates without breaking a sweat). Battlefield is just one of the many real world AAA games that have been benchmarked and played on ARM-based Macbooks.
1 Like
What would companies gain from adding resources they have to pay for, just to open the market for such a small community?
Not to mention, there is no such thing as a budget gamer who buys Mac on the cheap.
What is the monitary gain for a company to do this?
Assuming your comment to be correct, the gaming industry has time and time again proven selling at a loss can be a highly effective marketing strategy. In 2021, most (if not all) consoles being sold are sold at a loss, and yet the manufacturers rake in $$$ by the boat load from licensing games. The analogy is that even if Overwatch was sold at a loss to MacOS users, Blizzard would stand to rake in tons of $$$ from selling in-game purchases to the (generally more affluent) MacOS user base. That user base is more likely than any other to pay extra for in-app content.
2 Likes
At a risk to all the companies who take them. SEGA comes to mind.
The whole “consoles are sold at a loss” is clever word play. They are sold at cost and the company profits off additional equipment and games.
My first job was at a home electronics store and I could see the net profit for consoles purchased from the manufacturer and sold at retail. Retail makes about 2 dollars and the company nets 0. The game manufacturers roll in other costs, which were already predetermined when they decided to create the product. You know though, whatever people don’t know won’t hurt them right?
I think Blizzard has more on their plate right now then they can handle. Blizzard decided to take a risk to begin with and employ the perpetually offended, which bit them in the ___. Then they took another risk, and created a game environment which catered to the perpetually offended. And lookey there, it also bit them in the ___. At this point I don’t think Blizzard has any more risk taking in them.
This is 100% correct. Mac users waste money on a system that is actually only worth half what they paid for it. So it would seem to reason these people would also buy lots of gamer garbage as well.
2 Likes