Why won’t Apple build a game-worthy Mac? [Friday Night Fights]

By

fnf
Tell us, Apple!
Photo: Ste Smith/Cult of Mac

Mac users needn’t bother pre-ordering an Oculus Rift headset because they can’t use it. According to Oculus founder Palmer Luckey, that’s because none of the machines Apple offers are powerful enough to meet its recommended specifications.

Friday-Night-Fights-bug-2They’re not powerful enough to play the latest games at high-settings, either. Even if you spend thousands on a high-end Mac Pro, you’re going to be disappointed with its gaming prowess — especially if you want to drink in some of those sweet, sweet 4K graphics.

So, is it about time Apple built a Mac that’s good for gaming?

Join us in this week’s Friday Night Fight between Cult of Android and Cult of Mac as we battle it out over this and more!

Killian-FNFKillian Bell — Writer, Cult of Android: When I decided to upgrade my MacBook to a desktop a few years, I knew I wanted enough power to play games. I have a PS4 and I play it often, but I think a lot of genres are better played with a keyboard and mouse.

It didn’t take me long to decide that I would have to move away from Apple machines. None of them have a GPU that’s suitable for playing the latest titles at high settings.

As noted by Luckey, you can spend $6,000 on a Mac Pro and you still wouldn’t have enough power to use the Oculus Rift. Even with two AMD FirePro D700 GPUs, you’re going to struggle to play recent titles in 4K. Yet a custom-built PC that cost just $1,000 can power Oculus Rift, and you wouldn’t need to spend much more to get a smooth 4K experience, either.

Now, I know Apple’s high-end machines are built with professional content creators in mind, and they do a great job at catering to that market. But with more and more people using Macs and virtual reality on the rise, I feel like Apple is missing out by not offering at least one desktop that’s suitable for playing games.

So, my question to you is this: Should Apple be doing more to accommodate gamers?

cartoonluke_360.pngLuke Dormehl — Writer, Cult of Mac: This is a tricky one. Normally, I feel like I can spend our Friday Night Fights session arguing something that I believe to be true for both myself and Apple users in general. This week, I’m forced to admit that, as much as I’d love to see a high-end games PC equivalent made by Apple — particularly one that could be used for Oculus — it’s not necessarily something Apple should be in a hurry to pursue.

To start by addressing your Oculus Rift point, while it’s certainly true that even a Mac Pro couldn’t run Oculus, Palmer Luckey’s point does leave out a few things. It is highly likely that the spec for running Oculus will change over the coming years. I have no doubt that, if bringing it to Mac was a priority, Oculus’ creators could optimize for Mac. The fact that the team apparently paused development for OS X (and Linux too) isn’t purely limited to the technical capabilities of Apple’s computers.

Oculus also isn’t the be-all and end-all of VR. After all, you can get a passable VR effect on your smartphone or PS4, so the idea that a Mac wouldn’t be able to do the same thing is, frankly, ludicrous.

Macs will play games, but not like PCs.
Macs will play games, but not like PCs.
Photo: Killian Bell/Cult of Mac

As for whether or not Apple should do more to accommodate gamers, it’s a shame they don’t — but I understand why. It’s hard to believe now, but during the Apple II era, Apple’s computers were some of the best games machines around. Some of the biggest developers working today got their start on Apple machines. In that sense, it would be nice for Apple to embrace its heritage, but Apple is no longer focused on that crowd.

Today, Macs are more targeted at creatives and casual users. The priority is on making a computer that’s thin, silent to run, and — in the case of MacBooks — has a long battery life. An expandable Mac with an external GPU goes against Apple’s philosophy so much that it’s virtually impossible to imagine Tim Cook, Jony Ive and co. pursuing it.

It’s hard to blame them either, particularly when you look at the way that the PC market is declining, while Mac sales continue to grow year-on-year. PC gamers are a passionate, vocal crowd — but they still represent a niche, and Apple’s shown that it’s not interested in catering for niches, and nor is it interested in creating a wide variety of different machines (as you would find with PCs), each addressing slightly different use-cases.

It would be great to have a games PC with the attention to detail that Apple puts into its computers, and personally I’m convinced that VR is going to represent the next big game-changer in tech, but is it something Apple should do right now? I don’t think so.

Killian-FNFKillian: I’m sure the specifications for Oculus Rift will change over the years, but they’re not going to go backwards. If anything, the headset will just require even more powerful processors and GPUs to run even more impressive games. And yes, you can get VR on smartphones, but it’s not the same experience. Smartphone headsets costs under $100 for a reason, while Rift costs $599. I wouldn’t want to splash out on the latter for a subpar experience that’s been watered-down for Mac.

I don’t agree that it’s against “Apple’s philosophy” to offer an expandable Mac, either. Just four years ago, it was selling a Mac Pro that was more like a traditional PC, with PCIe slots that allowed for standard desktop video cards that could be upgraded. Why can’t it offer another Mac that offers the same? Why has it become so adverse to upgradeable computers?

I know Mac sales aren’t declining yet, but they will. They’re not going to die out anytime soon due to that creative market, which needs Macs no matter what, but there’s another market that will keep buying PCs regardless — and that’s gamers. A large number don’t want to play games on a tablet or even a console — they want the superior experience a PC brings.

Mac users are missing out on VR.
Mac users are missing out on VR.
Photo: Ste Smith / Cult of Mac

cartoonluke_360.pngLuke: You seem very convinced that Mac sales are going to crash some time soon. In fact, it’s pretty much a repeated argument from you whenever we have these fun Friday get-togethers: “Yes, Apple’s doing okay now, but just you wait until [insert doom scenario].”

As I’ve said, I’d love to see a high-end Mac that could run Oculus and play top games. As it is, most of my gaming has to be done on consoles, since I’ve not taken your leap away from Macs and back into PCs. But I don’t think it’s something Apple is likely to do, and given the success it’s currently enjoying with its Mac sales, I don’t think there’s any reason to do it, either.

Let me put it to you another way: do you genuinely think a top-spec games iMac would really be anything more than a niche product for Apple? Executed correctly, I can see it appealing to a core group of gamers. But casual customers? Not so much.

Killian-FNFKillian: Well, whether the Mac business crashes or not, surely Apple would want more sales if it can get them? What if Mac Pro sales fall because those buying them decide that can get a more powerful PC and an Oculus Rift for half the price?

Virtual reality is taking off, and Apple is yet to do anything about it. You can buy a Google Cardboard headset for iPhone, but very few apps are available for it. If you want a greater experience — whether that’s with a smartphone or a desktop PC — you need to move away from Apple products.

I don’t disagree that it would be somewhat of a niche, but probably more so than the current Mac Pro. And if Apple could position it in between the iMac and the Mac Pro, many of those buying the former might consider paying extra for the machine that is capable of playing the latest games at respectable settings.

Let’s turn this over to the readers now. Would you like Apple to offer a Mac you can game on, or is it unnecessary?

Friday Night Fights is a series of weekly death matches between two no-mercy brawlers who will fight to the death — or at least agree to disagree — about which is better: Apple or Google, iOS or Android?

  • NG4

    I would give serious thought to shelling out extra cash for a Mac that gamed on par with PCs.
    Not sure if I need Oculus level graphics… but the Mac has always lagged in graphics (display)performance on games.
    Having said that.. my maps load faster than PCs and I’m usually killing the PC guys at the beginning of a round before they’ve even drawn their weapon. So, it’s weird… my old Mac pro 2009 can load the maps faster… but even at max rez on the cards they give us… it never looks as good as it does on a PC.

    • jonen

      Loading speed is decided by Hard drive speed rather than Graphics processing power. the people you played with probably stored the game on an HDD

      • NG4

        Yeah, I get that. I guess I did run those two thoughts together.
        The point being.. that my CPU / HDD (now SSD) loads faster and gets me in the game faster than PC players… but the graphics will never measure up.
        I’m constantly at or near the top of the leader board.

        “the people you played with probably stored the game on an HDD”
        Isn’t that where very one stores the game?

      • jonen

        I meant HDD as in mechanical spinning hard drive as opposed to an SSD. most players store their game libraries on HDD`s due to the lower cost per GB. but you can of course store them on SSD`s for shorter loading speeds or even RAM disks, although the latter is very impractical. if you spawn faster than your opponents, you probably store the game on a faster drive than they do.

      • NG4

        Again.. I stored them on an HDD but now on an SSD. The HDD was a 7200 rpm… no speed demon.
        Once again… I’m in faster than most and I’m near the top of the board most times. (even when i was on the 7200 HDD.)
        I may not be getting the same experience as a PC… but it’s only in the graphics department.
        AND this is a 7 year old machine.
        In any event.. it’s been my experience that my Mac loads maps faster than most pCs… but this is probably due to the fact that I’m not loading it at the same level of graphics.

      • jonen

        Suppose detail level could impact loading speed. especially of lower resolution textures are used. never really thought about it, i dont think anybody has ever researched it

  • Diego

    An upgradable mac desktop.
    Right.
    Who would supply the GPU drivers?
    We all no AMD and nvidia don’t really care about os X.
    VR would need 3 years to be fully adopted in every PC.
    I hate windows and the drivers/directX problems.
    Saying this, I think macs can use external gpus for gaming and workstation related things.
    I’m confused.
    A ps4 can run psVR, but a decent computer can’t run VR properly?
    sounds strange.

    • KillianBell

      NVIDIA already supplies GPU drivers for OS X. I use them on my Hackintosh.

  • Mac McIntire

    Would a casual gamer spend $6,000 for a gaming computer?

    • Diego

      Those guys spend up to $30000 for a gaming pc.

      • KillianBell

        I’ve spent around £1,200 (about $1,700) on mine. I have two GTX 970 GPUs, a decent Core i5 processor, two SSDs, two HDDs, and more. I can run GTA V with high settings in 4K and get over 90fps. My PC is easily capable of supporting Oculus Rift.

      • Diego

        Some get titan Xs in 4 way SLI, an intel core i7 extreme 8 core, 128gb of ram, $300 motherboard “gigabyte is the best”, PC lighting with remote control, the best water cooling or nitrogen cooling system, a large PSU, plus extras like an expansion case for 31 extra 3.5 inch HDDs.

      • KillianBell

        Oh, I know. I was just pointing out to Mac McIntire that you don’t need to spend $6,000 on a very good gaming PC.

  • Bigfoot Expert

    Is the mac pro considered a good gaming computer? or is it not good enough?

    • KillianBell

      It’s not enough because of the GPUs.

    • jonen

      Some benchmarks i`ve seen claim its a pretty solid performer. not good for its price mind you, you pay about 4x that of an equivalent gaming desktop. but they can supposedly compete with an R9 290x. so they`re not terrible in that case

  • Pedro Nuno

    I don’t know much of computer hardware but wouldn’t this problem be resolved with an eternal graphics card with the necessary specs?. Anyone with a mac and interested in playing the latest games would buy the external graphics card and play.

    • jonen

      i suppose so. some games still require better CPU`s than most macs can offer, but for the most part yes.

  • Jchavez

    The hardcore gaming crowd might be too niche for Apple, but I can’t see why they would ignore the larger market of casual gamers like myself, who would be satisfied with even something you’d find on the medium to lower end of Razer’s lineup just to be able play most games on medium spec. Also, I just want to point out that VR itself is going to be a niche gaming activity for a while to come.

    • GreenGirl

      With all due respect that’s rubbish. The ‘hardcore gaming crowd’ is about the ONLY CROWD that’s keeping the PC industry afloat (bulk dell dumb stations aside). So Apple finally having a desktop Mac that can / does support Nvidia (because of drivers) SLI in bootcamp and in OS X would dominate both markets.

      I swore I’d never have another PC in the house after I switched in 2007, however now I’m considering a dedicated Gaming PC so I can run my sim’s in triple super wide screen at full detail / resolution. My iMac and my Mac mini will then be for every other type of computing I do (iOS Dev / email / writing / website design / watching movies / listening to music etc).

      However I would kiss Tim Cook’s feet if he gave me a Mac that could do both.

      • Kael

        The GPU is the one big thing that Apple really has dropped the ball on. I am also one that might go hackintosh if Apple can’t deliver a better GPU for games. It would also result in much better Macs as they offload some processing to the GPU.

      • Jchavez

        The hardcore gaming crowd I’m referring to are the ones that always build the best machine money can buy. The debate was about an upgrade option for Macs, but since Apple makes most of its money on locked-in hardware sales and not ads, any upgrades and drivers would come from them. It would be a whole separate business division, and so too niche if the profit margins weren’t high enough. You wanted all or nothing performance, so you bought a machine specifically for that purpose. Would you have considered a Mac that gave you 80% of the graphics performance of the standalone? There are many out there that would, because one Mac with decent gaming power would invariably be cheaper than a Mac AND a gaming PC.

  • Apple doesn’t necessarily put a discrete GPU into one of it’s computers, or build an external GPU. All they have to do is build it into a monitor.

    • KillianBell

      That’s a great idea! A Thunderbolt Display with a GPU built-in would be terrific.

      • anon

        Now this is both a brilliant idea and something I could see Apple do, they would even be able to sell this to PC users where the vast majority of PC games are.
        Just make them linkable and have really thin bezels. If they did this right it could be insanely popular.

    • Brian Emershaw

      LOVE this idea, and would shell out (plenty) extra for a Mac ‘Gaming’ monitor!

    • Damn.
      That is a brilliant idea!

  • Roxy Balboa

    I blame the loser game developers who are incapable of doing more with less. They should go back to school and learn how to write efficient and performant code.

    • KillianBell

      But why makes games for Mac that don’t look as good as those on PC? It just makes your game look bad.

  • jonen

    EDIT: i just discovered copy paste works weird in disqus. give some time to fix the comment before reading

    so in order to game
    on the oculus rift, you need to render the game at 2160×1200 and get
    90fps or higher. for perspective, running a game at 720p@30fps takes
    27million pixels per second. running a game on the oculus takes
    1080@90fps x 2 = 233 million pixels.
    for anyone who doesnt know(and i know there`s many out there) let me explain how the Oculus works in terms of system requirements.

    the oculus has a display of 2160 x 1200. 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the parallax 3D effect. in order to make movements in game feel about as smooth as real life you need 90fps.

    so in order to game
    on the oculus rift, you need to render the game at 2160×1200 and get
    90fps or higher. for perspective, running a game at 720p@30fps takes
    27million pixels per second. running a game on the oculus takes
    1080@90fps x 2 = 233 million pixels.
    n order to game on the oculus, you need to render your game at 2160 x 1200 and get 90fps or higher. for reference running a game in 720p at 30fps takes 27 million pixels per second to render. running a game on the oculus takes 233 million pixels because you need a resolution of 2160×1200 and 90 refreshes per second.

    so in theory any pc that can output 2160×1200 at 90fps can run the oculus. so macs can run power the oculus in theory in i think they do in practice s well if you run Windows on them. problem is, in modern games, maintaining 2160×1200 and getting 90fps takes a lot of
    juice. running 5 year old games in VR on the 5K imac should be fine for instance, enough juice in there for that. brand new games…not so much. realistically you need more than a single 970 to do so, probably 2 or preferably 3 970`s in SLI.

    the system requirements for the oculus isnt static, it depends on the game in question. Palmer Luckey is incorrect in saying Macs cant handle VR, they just cant do a particularly good job on it due to mediocre GPU`s, nothing is stopping you from installing Windows and connecting a rift headset. it should work. but the audience isnt big enough on mac to make official support worth it , and those who want it will simply install Windows and use the Oculus from there.

    the oculus rift has a
    display resolution of 2160×1200, 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the
    parallax 3D effect. in order to create movements that seem as responsive
    and smooth as real life, you need to render at about 90
    frames-per-second. i havent used VR, but owning a 144hz monitor, i can
    tell 90fps is where motion looks about as smooth as it gets. anything
    lower would feel choppy and unnatural in VR
    juice

    so in
    order to game on the oculus rift, you need to render the game at
    2160×1200 and get 90fps or higher. for perspective, running a game at
    720p@30fps takes 27million pixels per second. running a game on the
    oculus takes 1080@90fps x 2 = 233 million pixels.

    so
    in order to test if a computer can run a specific game on the oculus.
    simply run the game at 2160×1200 and see if you get more than 90fps. so
    macs can power the oculus if the game is light enough to run. id imagine
    the 5K iMac should be able to run portal 2 on the oculus for instance,
    but the game is also old and was fairly non-intensive even back then.

    most
    people who invest in VR probably expects to run today`s games, not
    yesterday`s. most modern games i would say would need about 2 980`s in
    SLI to run 2016×1200 at 90fps. that should be about 1700$ i think for
    the components.

    but as i said. VR is not a
    static requirement, it depends on the game really. so Macs can power the
    oculus in theory assuming the game is light enough. id say the 5K iMac
    is VR ready for most games released in 2010 or older

    oculus rift has a
    display resolution of 2160×1200, 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the
    parallax 3D effect. in order to create movements that seem as responsive
    and smooth as real life, you need to render at about 90
    frames-per-second. i havent used VR, but owning a 144hz monitor, i can
    tell 90fps is where motion looks about as smooth as it gets. anything
    lower would feel choppy and unnatural in VR
    the oculus rift has a
    display resolution of 2160×1200, 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the
    parallax 3D effect. in order to create movements that seem as responsive
    and smooth as real life, you need to render at about 90
    frames-per-second. i havent used VR, but owning a 144hz monitor, i can
    tell 90fps is where motion looks about as smooth as it gets. anything
    lower would feel choppy and unnatural in VR
    the oculus rift has a
    display resolution of 2160×1200, 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the
    parallax 3D effect. in order to create movements that seem as responsive
    and smooth as real life, you need to render at about 90
    frames-per-second. i havent used VR, but owning a 144hz monitor, i can
    tell 90fps is where motion looks about as smooth as it gets. anything
    lower would feel choppy and unnatural in VR
    the oculus rift has a
    display resolution of 2160×1200, 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the
    parallax 3D effect. in order to create movements that seem as responsive
    and smooth as real life, you need to render at about 90
    frames-per-second. i havent used VR, but owning a 144hz monitor, i can
    tell 90fps is where motion looks about as smooth as it gets. anything
    lower would feel choppy and unnatural in VR

    so in
    order to game on the oculus rift, you need to render the game at
    2160×1200 and get 90fps or higher. for perspective, running a game at
    720p@30fps takes 27million pixels per second. running a game on the
    oculus takes 1080@90fps x 2 = 233 million pixels.

    so
    in order to test if a computer can run a specific game on the oculus.
    simply run the game at 2160×1200 and see if you get more than 90fps. so
    macs can power the oculus if the game is light enough to run. id imagine
    the 5K iMac should be able to run portal 2 on the oculus for instance,
    but the game is also old and was fairly non-intensive even back then.

    most
    people who invest in VR probably expects to run today`s games, not
    yesterday`s. most modern games i would say would need about 2 980`s in
    SLI to run 2016×1200 at 90fps. that should be about 1700$ i think for
    the components.

    but as i said. VR is not a
    static requirement, it depends on the game really. so Macs can power the
    oculus in theory assuming the game is light enough. id say the 5K iMac
    is VR ready for most games released in 2010 or older
    the oculus rift has a
    display resolution of 2160×1200, 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the
    parallax 3D effect. in order to create movements that seem as responsive
    and smooth as real life, you need to render at about 90
    frames-per-second. i havent used VR, but owning a 144hz monitor, i can
    tell 90fps is where motion looks about as smooth as it gets. anything
    lower would feel choppy and unnatural in VR

    so in
    order to game on the oculus rift, you need to render the game at
    2160×1200 and get 90fps or higher. for perspective, running a game at
    720p@30fps takes 27million pixels per second. running a game on the
    oculus takes 1080@90fps x 2 = 233 million pixels.

    so
    in order to test if a computer can run a specific game on the oculus.
    simply run the game at 2160×1200 and see if you get more than 90fps. so
    macs can power the oculus if the game is light enough to run. id imagine
    the 5K iMac should be able to run portal 2 on the oculus for instance,
    but the game is also old and was fairly non-intensive even back then.

    most
    people who invest in VR probably expects to run today`s games, not
    yesterday`s. most modern games i would say would need about 2 980`s in
    SLI to run 2016×1200 at 90fps. that should be about 1700$ i think for
    the components.

    but as i said. VR is not a
    static requirement, it depends on the game really. so Macs can power the
    oculus in theory assuming the game is light enough. id say the 5K iMac
    is VR ready for most games released in 2010 or older
    the oculus rift has a
    display resolution of 2160×1200, 1080×1200 per eye to achieve the
    parallax 3D effect. in order to create movements that seem as responsive
    and smooth as real life, you need to render at about 90
    frames-per-second. i havent used VR, but owning a 144hz monitor, i can
    tell 90fps is where motion looks about as smooth as it gets. anything
    lower would feel choppy and unnatural in VR

    so in
    order to game on the oculus rift, you need to render the game at
    2160×1200 and get 90fps or higher. for perspective, running a game at
    720p@30fps takes 27million pixels per second. running a game on the
    oculus takes 1080@90fps x 2 = 233 million pixels.

    so
    in order to test if a computer can run a specific game on the oculus.
    simply run the game at 2160×1200 and see if you get more than 90fps. so
    macs can power the oculus if the game is light enough to run. id imagine
    the 5K iMac should be able to run portal 2 on the oculus for instance,
    but the game is also old and was fairly non-intensive even back then.

    most
    people who invest in VR probably expects to run today`s games, not
    yesterday`s. most modern games i would say would need about 2 980`s in
    SLI to run 2016×1200 at 90fps. that should be about 1700$ i think for
    the components.

    but as i said. VR is not a
    static requirement, it depends on the game really. so Macs can power the
    oculus in theory assuming the game is light enough. id say the 5K iMac
    is VR ready for most games released in 2010 or older

  • Tjosansa

    Priorities. I have a 27″ iMac all maxed, for gaming. Works for me.
    Silens, low energy, always working computer.

  • Brian Emershaw

    Should Apple build a gaming PC? Probably not. Should they build something unapologetically ‘ugly’ in their eyes, that allow people who are nerdy enough to install their own hardware in a PCIx slot? Possibly. I’ve bitched about that very thing over and over. But when all is said and done, they’re not going to do anything that tarnishes the physical beauty of their machines.

    What they should do is accept that this is a niche market which they don’t want to serve, but still a growing percentage of their customers who are willing to pay more to do what they want anyway. (Woz would agree). All they have to do is just support Razor’s external GPU through OS X, and say ‘Hey, we got you covered, you small annoying group of users who can’t understand why so many good games are now available for the first time ever, and why even more confusingly, Apple no longer supports them with hardware. EDIT: Would also require USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 across the board, of course.

  • Matthew Gill

    I’m going to give you the short, ‘Apple’ answer.

    No.

    The Apple TV is designed for gaming (with the latest revision).

    There will not be a Mac designed for gaming. Use the Apple TV.

    Prediction: Apple TV will be far more powerful in the future. And, the games on it will become much more popular. It will one day rival the XBOX and the PlayStation.

    … tick tock.

    • drogah

      It simply will not, *unless* Apple increases the size of the unit, thus increasing what kind of performance it can get out of the Apple TV. It lags so far behind the PS4 right now, it’s incredible. Even the Wii U is capable of pushing more.

      That’s not a diss on the Apple TV. It’s good hardware, for what it is. And it’s a passable casual gaming system. But nobody’s ever going to sit down and play serious non-casual games on it.

  • Stetch

    I would totally sacrifice batterylife for a top GPU as I use my MacBook Pro as a stationary computer anyway. But lately I looked more and more at Razers top Laptops. And if im gonna spend top money I want a computer that can handle it all. Games or surfing.
    (No. I will still buy Mac. Cant handle Windows. But you get the idea).

  • Jan te Pas

    is the Oculus the end of VR? No, and it’s not the only company who develops VR. As seen in history. At boundaries people eg companies getting innovative. Hardware is just one fact. New thinking is the other. I look forward the new technics. Be honest, do you want to walk around with such an ugly, massive thing? i not!

    • drogah

      One would hope that you will not be walking around with your VR unit ;).

  • old_school

    WTF. are you all babbling about, you can get mac pro 2,1 and up for under 450 euros, buy yourself that darn GTX970, plug it in your Mac Pro and here you go with Oculus. FYI OSX uses OpenGL natively with GUI and games and everything, inform yourselves before you babble.

  • Chris Wood

    Why would apple have to make its own gaming platform when external video cards are catching up. With faster and faster external connections like thunderbolt 2/3 the need for an internal card might go away. Then turning any machine with a good processor into a gaming machine without the need for making a whole new line just for a niche market.

  • anon

    I currently only own a laptop (MacBook Pro Retina) and 4 consoles. I have been thinking of getting a desktop for gaming, but the problem is that if I were to build one it would cost significantly more than a console for it to feel and look noticeably better. It’s very easy to see the difference between a high end PC and console in head to head comparison, but if two people were playing the same game, one person on a console and one person on a PC, they would most likely have the same experience.
    I went to GameStop a few weeks ago and got an Xbox 360 for $40 that will play the entire Xbox 360 library without problems and even if I spent $1000 on a new PC that I would only use for gaming, I still would have to install games, have games that won’t run, install drivers that gimp my GPU, etc. There are pros and cons with PC gaming (mostly pros), but even if there was a PC exclusive game I wanted to play, it’s not like my MacBook is completely useless. Last time I played Portal 2 I could run it at max settings at the native retina resolution at an acceptable framerate 30-40 if I were to guess.

    But to answer the question more specifically: No I wouldn’t, if I were to buy a desktop I would use it exclusively for gaming and still use my MacBook for actual PC stuff. Most games run better on Windows and knowing Apple it would probably be expensive and a hassle to upgrade parts.

  • Realist555

    I’m glad Mac doesn’t accommodate all games. I hate games, they are the heroine of teens. Every parent I know has problems keeping their sons off the computer. I have to reduce my sons game time all the time, because the games take over his judgement, and then his grades are affected.

  • AAPL.To.Break.$130.Soon>:-)

    It’s likely if Apple built gaming computers they’d be obliged to support them and Apple probably doesn’t want to do that. My take is that the upper management at Apple doesn’t like to build products that aren’t profitable. I could see if they built CTO gaming machines that required some high-level tier of support that users would have to pay extra for. Anyway, we’ll never know. It seems like a very conservative company and isn’t interested in building products that run at 100%.

  • cactustweeter

    I am not interested in an Apple gaming PC.

  • ichicolco

    Apple ][ best gaming machine during its time? Sure, OK, but only if you forget about the Commodore 64 and the Atari 800, both of which put the ][ to shame for 8bit hardware. There’s one reason that games thrived on the ][ – educational market penetration. Now let’s return to 2016.