Hi,

ZeniMax Online Studios, the developer of ESO, is not Bethesda Softworks, the developer of past (and potential future) Elder Scrolls games, although both are subsidiaries of ZeniMax Media Inc, among others. This doesn't answer your question, but the guys at Bethesda are the wrong ones to ask.

As for ESO, I can only congratulate ZOS for their decision of building the game client for OS X, too. The more, the merrier.

Pwezsal19 wrote: »

I have A question for Bethesda! Something that's been bothering me for almost a year now!

Why is ESO available for mac but Skyrim,Fallout 3, or any of your other developed games not available for mac?

First you need to understand that Bethesda did not develop The Elder Scrolls Online. That is Zenimax Online Studios. Bethesda Softworks is the publishing arm not the development side which is Bethesda Game Studios which made Skyrim and Fallout 3. Always somewhat confusing.

The principal reason that these games were not released for the Mac platform is that they were developed on their own in-house game engine namely the Creation Engine for Skyrim and the earlier form of it, Gamebryo used for Fallout 3.

Although they are constantly updated over time (and are separate engines tough some code is still used from the earlier one) they are still based on an engine that was always developed with PC and console in mind. The work to port the across would be that harder than most games.

The reason why we have a native Mac client for ESO is that ZOS committed to the platform early in the development process and set it up so that they could develop cross-platform and make a Mac version both
easier and more cost effective. The have had the lead Mac developer in the design team for four years now.
So that it was considered from this early stage and the development included Mac support.

Also, both Skyrim and Fallout 3 are single player games while ESO is an MMO. To reach as wide an audience as possible and the considering the wider range of computers they aimed to support, it made it
easier to include the Mac client. Consider that most main MMOs support Macs (with varying levels of support and success) for this reason.

Usually the reason for developing a Mac port is driven by economics. Potential market and sales versus cost to do so. In their case I suspect the cost to develop a port from the Creation Engine would not justify
the expenditure. As we know, this has been a common decision over time.

A final point is that there are actually only a limited number of game developers/ engineers with the relevant OS X experience and training. Blizzard for example, have had job vacancies for their Mac team for something like two years and they are still vacant.

To the future, I suspect that Fallout 4 will probably utilise the Creation Engine again or at least an updated version which means we will not see a mac version. But at some point they will need to turn to new technology etc. which will push them to a new engine. At that point it becomes more of a reality.

With most of the main game engines now supporting OS X at least it gives developers the tools. But it will always come down to the financial viability of providing a port to a part of the overall market which is only something like 5% of market share.

There are movements now in the main games engines which should aid the process and innovations in OpenGL and other technologies which should all help for the future. It does remain the fact however, that Apple itself has never seen gaming or even the Mac itself now as core business and their support has reflected that. Maybe future cross fertilisation from iOS and new ways to play will change that.

@Moonraker: I've had that discussion too, over and over during the years, and will point out that A) The cost of doing a Mac port of their engine would probably be significantly cheaper than it cost them to originally port it to platforms like the PS3, and It doesn't require a huge amount of Mac sales to make it profitable to do so - since the majority of the cost of developing a game isn't the code, but the content -- and once the engine has been ported, they can use it for multiple games. The odds are fairly good that a port would be profitable with just one game, but increase to being almost certainly profitable after a second game using that engine is done.

Bethesda simply would have to make the decision to port their in-house engine to the Mac. It's not like they don't have control over it (like, for example, what's happening with DA:I…), so it's *their* choice here. It's long overdue they did it. The only reason they haven't, IMHO, is that really wrong opinion that Mac users can just use Bootcamp, which @GreySix stated.

The truth is, Bootcamp is a bandaid on a gaping wound at best. Sure, I use Bootcamp to play Skyrim, SWTOR, and some other games. I *hate* using Bootcamp to do so with a passion. Invariably I end up cursing Windows for some reason or another… and since my browser, email, social networking, etc. are all installed on my Mac and NOT on my Windows partition, I'm cut off from such things when booted into Bootcamp. (Which makes the IP gate check on SWTOR and others a real pain…) Bootcamp is NOT the right answer for gaming on your Mac… At best, it's a barely tolerable last resort, and it's only for the few really must-have games out there, IMHO - and, unless you're a technically savvy power gamer, I can't recommend it. (And if you *are* a technically savvy power gamer, why are you playing on a Mac instead of a custom built Windows tower?)

As it is, Skyrim annoyed me so much with having to use Boot camp to play it, combined with having to deal with a UI which was so Console oriented to be unusable on a keyboard/mouse setup (and I HATE gamepads almost as much as Bootcamp…), that I almost certainly won't buy the next Bethesda Elder Scrolls game *unless* they make a native Mac version of it. It's just not worth the hassle.

Actually, as a professional programmer with decades of experience in just about every OS out there, I'm *quite* aware of the complexity, resources, finances, and expertise needed to do this. It's not as bad as you think, because the actual engine code which needs to be rewritten is only a tiny fraction of the overall game code. Yes, it's still a significant project, but a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cost of the game. Probably a couple of man-years of work, given decent Mac programming experience, and more importantly, OpenGL and OpenCL experience.

(To give you a relative idea - DICE, the people behind the Frostbite engine, a compatible entity to what Bethesda uses, have had a job opening for a Mac programmer to port Frostbite to the Mac for a while now -- *one* Mac programmer, as that's all it would probably need to do the job in couple years… And Bethesda is in the DC / Baltimore metro area, where Mac programmers are all over the place, so it's not a difficult position to fill…)

Also, you have to understand that while that 5% refers to total machines out there, the vast majority of those machines can't run modern games anyway. A more accurate assessment would be based on game share for games which have PC/Mac support on day of release. It varies wildly, of course, from game to game, but most estimates put it somewhere between 20% to 30%.

But lets go with your 5% as a baseline. Skyrim sold over 10 million copies. If 5% of those were Mac, that would be 500,000 copies due to Mac sales. If Bethesda only netted $2 per copy, that would be $1,000,000 in Mac profits. Given average programmer salaries in the field, that would probably pay for even 10 Mac programmer man-years -- more than enough to do the job, and still have money left over for QA.

The thing holding them back is attitudes regarding Bootcamp and Wine that find them "good enough". Wine is no more a "good enough" solution than Bootcamp, IMHO - it's usually buggy as hell, is difficult to set up, and performs poorly. But as long as the upper management sees that people are willing to accept a Bootcamp or Wine version of a game, they assume they'll sell to all the potential Mac gamers without having to spend a cent.

Which, of course, isn't true. Only the die-hard Mac gamers, a tiny fraction of the potential market, actually goes ahead and runs games on Bootcamp, and an even smaller fraction does so with Wine. Most of the companies which have experimented with doing Mac have stuck with it as it's profitable to do so - the main exceptions being those who have switched to an engine which doesn't support Mac (for example, the Dragon Age series switched to Frostbite, so they can't do Mac until Frostbite is ported -- which it will be, sooner or later…).

And as long as people keep saying "Oh, just use Bootcamp", or "Just use Wine", it will continue to be difficult to convince publishers to support Mac natively. Which is why I make it a point to refute such statements whenever I see them.

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

Actually, as a professional programmer with decades of experience in just about every OS out there, I'm *quite* aware of the complexity, resources, finances, and expertise needed to do this. It's not as bad as you think, because the actual engine code which needs to be rewritten is only a tiny fraction of the overall game code. Yes, it's still a significant project, but a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cost of the game. Probably a couple of man-years of work, given decent Mac programming experience, and more importantly, OpenGL and OpenCL experience.

Sorry, I didn't mean to teach granny to suck eggs

(To give you a relative idea - DICE, the people behind the Frostbite engine, a compatible entity to what Bethesda uses, have had a job opening for a Mac programmer to port Frostbite to the Mac for a while now -- *one* Mac programmer, as that's all it would probably need to do the job in couple years… And Bethesda is in the DC / Baltimore metro area, where Mac programmers are all over the place, so it's not a difficult position to fill…)

I can only go on what the situation appears to be. Blizzard have had a job advert up for over two-three years now for a Mac Engineer to join their development team and no takers. I don't think they have even had any applicants (from WoW Mac forum posts) Zenimax themselves has/ had a job advert up for an equally long time. It just seems that it is a hard roll to fill. And as you point out there seems a problem in finding the relevant expertise for this type of work. I think this is one of the obstacles.

Also, you have to understand that while that 5% refers to total machines out there, the vast majority of those machines can't run modern games anyway. A more accurate assessment would be based on game share for games which have PC/Mac support on day of release. It varies wildly, of course, from game to game, but most estimates put it somewhere between 20% to 30%.

For game share I was going on OS in the original post from latest Steam Hardware/ Software Stats which is a decent size (around 5.5M currently) to get a 'general' real time figure. OS X is 3.54% so 5% seemed a reasonably generous roundup.

But lets go with your 5% as a baseline. Skyrim sold over 10 million copies. If 5% of those were Mac, that would be 500,000 copies due to Mac sales. If Bethesda only netted $2 per copy, that would be $1,000,000 in Mac profits. Given average programmer salaries in the field, that would probably pay for even 10 Mac programmer man-years -- more than enough to do the job, and still have money left over for QA.

I don't think it adds up like this though. Current figures posted by Bethesda confirm that Skyrim sold over 20 million copies now. But breaking that down to platform, PC is only actually 14% of the total sales. 5% of 14% leaves a different picture, even with double the sales figures (source)

The thing holding them back is attitudes regarding Bootcamp and Wine that find them "good enough". Wine is no more a "good enough" solution than Bootcamp, IMHO - it's usually buggy as hell, is difficult to set up, and performs poorly. But as long as the upper management sees that people are willing to accept a Bootcamp or Wine version of a game, they assume they'll sell to all the potential Mac gamers without having to spend a cent.

Which, of course, isn't true. Only the die-hard Mac gamers, a tiny fraction of the potential market, actually goes ahead and runs games on Bootcamp, and an even smaller fraction does so with Wine. Most of the companies which have experimented with doing Mac have stuck with it as it's profitable to do so - the main exceptions being those who have switched to an engine which doesn't support Mac (for example, the Dragon Age series switched to Frostbite, so they can't do Mac until Frostbite is ported -- which it will be, sooner or later…).

And as long as people keep saying "Oh, just use Bootcamp", or "Just use Wine", it will continue to be difficult to convince publishers to support Mac natively. Which is why I make it a point to refute such statements whenever I see them.

I agree with you. And totally support your stance and always have done. I just don't see it in such clear terms.

Mostly it's a range of different solutions ranging from no support at all, to using a compatibility layer (Wine) done in house with the minimum of resource and little to no support, or via porting houses (Feral Interactive) with better Mac expertise and support. Then to the big step up of developing a native Mac client in-house.

The middle ground is where most Mac games are for the reason that they offer the financially viable path. I'm not sure whether is is better to have at least Mac support for more games even if they do not offer the performance or advantage of a native client?

Like you I see the answer in more OS X support built into the game engine used which hopefully will make the cost choice more favourable in pushing the game companies to offer Mac support. And of the main ones do now or should soon.

I'm still not sure where that will leave more specialist games engine like the Creation Engine. I'm thinking it depends to what extent they change it for their next offering and what support it will have (assuming new generation consoles).

This written by Peter Cohen recently on Mac gaming in 2014 sums up pretty much what I mean;

Despite the surging popularity of the Mac, it still remains a niche. So for many publishers, it simply still doesn't make business sense to divert resources into Mac game development and publishing if it means taking away from a core business selling to PC and console gamers. That's changed, as the sales of Macs have risen, and more and more companies are taking a serious look, but for many, it's still not worth it.

That leaves the prospects of companies like Aspyr, Feral and Transgaming safe — they have years of experience managing Mac conversions, assuming the risk themselves. The downside is that this has often led to a delay in the time between a game's debut on other platforms and its release on the Mac.

Developer expertise is another critical issue. At this point, generations of game developers have grown up playing and making games on PCs (and consoles), while the talent pool for Mac games is a lot smaller. A lot of the same principles apply, and there are a lot of cross-platform "middleware" tools to simplify the process, but code development is art and science, and it's very easy to make a mediocre or bad Mac app, and much more challenging to make a good one. That's best left to people with experience, and those are still few and far between, especially in the game development world.

The state of Mac gaming in 2014: Will Apple ever get its game on?

In the end Apple still have a lot to answer for in the current state of Mac gaming.

LandoMoonHunter wrote: »

I the Mac has a smaller pool in development

Necroing a thread from two months ago..

Different games and different economics basically. If it made sense I am sure they would port it to Mac. The game engine is also totally different.

Perhaps they will make changes for Fallout 4 and next TESO release which will make it achievable for a Mac port.

The fallout games and the ES games are the reason I have bootcamp running on my macs but my gameing machine the old Mac Pro from 2006 can not run anything newer than XP sp3 and the laptop from mid 2009 is on win7
But I do so only under duress because I just want to play those games and I do not enjoy playing RPG types of games with console controllers.

For many years I worked with companies doing games and ports of games to the apple on the ][ and then on to the first macs in the 80s and 90s right up to the transition to osx and you will find my name in the credits of some of the best of them and this calculation has been going on for a very long time a lot of folks might be supprised to know that a lot of game IPs that are still going strong today on consoles and PC were in fact started on apple hardware

I remember the good old days of Starcraft/Diablo on the Mac, The very superior Sims port, Marathon, Myth 2, the still amazing Escape Velocity, the lighthearted Power Pete, Myst, etc.