Native Mac Client

Now that Switch 2 has been added and FFXIV has been ported to support ARM architectures please consider a native client for macOS, it would be great if it supported game mode as well and it increase the performance notably, currently the official client for Mac suffers a lot on the new alliance raid.

The fact that we do not have a native Mac client is laughable… And they dare charge us money for it when the client can’t even run properly in the first place.

I still hope that in the future they’ll fix this… Many game companies don’t have any issues optimising their games for Mac.
Heck even Wow runs on it smoothly like butter on breadies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubert

The fact that we do not have a native Mac client is laughable… And they dare charge us money for it when the client can’t even run properly in the first place.

I still hope that in the future they’ll fix this… Many game companies don’t have any issues optimising their games for Mac.
Heck even Wow runs on it smoothly like butter on breadies.

---

It just goes to show how incompetent Squeenix’s devs really are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bubert

The fact that we do not have a native Mac client is laughable… And they dare charge us money for it when the client can’t even run properly in the first place.

I still hope that in the future they’ll fix this… Many game companies don’t have any issues optimising their games for Mac.
Heck even Wow runs on it smoothly like butter on breadies.

---

Indeed, this is one of the few games and mmos that support Mac, but don't support it correctly for some reason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiaDeem

Where did you get that from? Did they make a press release or give any interviews confirming it? There's a higher chance of the game running on a translation layer than it being a native ARM version. It'd explain why the game is reportedly targeting 30FPS instead of 60.

Windows doesn't even have DX12/Vulkan versions, and you're expecting an ARM one? Gotta temper those expectations.

---

There's a really low chance that it is running under a compatibility layer on Switch as Nintendo don't allow it, the 30 FPS is obvious to keep battery life, but this thread isn't about Switch but rather a native Mac version for paying customers, please stay on topic or just create another thread for the Switch version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiaDeem

So we're really just speculating, huh... not interested then. Without confirmed sources, this is a pointless conversation.

---

Asking for a native client for macOS is not a pointless conversation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AshleyDragon

There's a really low chance that it is running under a compatibility layer on Switch as Nintendo don't allow it, the 30 FPS is obvious to keep battery life, but this thread isn't about Switch but rather a native Mac version for paying customers, please stay on topic or just create another thread for the Switch version.

---

Bringing up the fallocy in the original post is definitely on topic. You claim Nintendo doesn't allow compatibility layers yet Nintendo themselves use said layers for their old games. Not just the emulator built in for the retro games, but even OG switch games played on S2 are in a type of compatibility layer to play properly with a completely different GPU architecture. 30 fps is abysmal, that is definitely due to some underlying compatibility layer and not for battery life. The battery life argument falls flat when it still gets 30 fps when docked. Games that always drop performance in lieu of battery regains the performance when docked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uzephi

Bringing up the fallocy in the original post is definitely on topic. You claim Nintendo doesn't allow compatibility layers yet Nintendo themselves use said layers for their old games. Not just the emulator built in for the retro games, but even OG switch games played on S2 are in a type of compatibility layer to play properly with a completely different GPU architecture. 30 fps is abysmal, that is definitely due to some underlying compatibility layer and not for battery life. The battery life argument falls flat when it still gets 30 fps when docked. Games that always drop performance in lieu of battery regains the performance when docked.

---

I'll stop answering about Switch info in a Mac thread, this is not the place to talk about FFXIV fps in the switch port, this thread was created to provide visibility that Mac still doesn't have a native port all these years for an officially supported port, if you want to continue discussing Switch 2 features please create a new thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AshleyDragon

I'll stop answering about Switch info in a Mac thread, this is not the place to talk about FFXIV fps in the switch port, this thread was created to provide visibility that Mac still doesn't have a native port all these years for an officially supported port, if you want to continue discussing Switch 2 features please create a new thread.

---

Then simple: edit the comparison out of your OP. You brought this conversation about by bringing an improper comparison in your post. There is no proof the Switch 2 port is running native ARM code and evidence proves otherwise. If a brand new client/console isn't getting native support for its architecture, what in the world makes you think an old client for an OS the developer barely acknowledges would get it also?

Edit: and even if, somehow, that S2 client is running native ARM code. Would you want that slideshow on your Mac? Serious question, if the S2 cannot handle more than 30fps, how much would your Mac Fair... If this client was running native ARM code and performing that horribly... Remember; the S2 can run some pretty demanding titles at 60 fps docked, so the fact a game that easily runs at 60 fps on last gen hardware barely running 30 fps is pretty bad. I'm all for you getting a native client, but you wouldn't want the S2 client even if it was running native ARM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uzephi

Bringing up the fallocy in the original post is definitely on topic. You claim Nintendo doesn't allow compatibility layers yet Nintendo themselves use said layers for their old games. Not just the emulator built in for the retro games, but even OG switch games played on S2 are in a type of compatibility layer to play properly with a completely different GPU architecture. 30 fps is abysmal, that is definitely due to some underlying compatibility layer and not for battery life. The battery life argument falls flat when it still gets 30 fps when docked. Games that always drop performance in lieu of battery regains the performance when docked.

---

All this doesn’t even matter. What matters is if they can make Ffxiv for Nintendo console then why is Mac users are getting abandoned? We get a crappy client with crappy graphics included at times.

There’s no excuse for SE since other game companies don’t have any issues for making their games to run beautifully and smooth on Macs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiaDeem

You're assuming the Switch 2 version is running on a native ARM client based on nothing but vibes. You have no way to prove this, and until you do, there's no reason to assume a native Mac client is in the works based on the Switch 2 version you've currently made up in your mind.

---

I don't believe a Mac client is being worked on, quite the contrary I'm sure it isn't and probably there will never be who knows, but the purpose of this thread as I explained is not about whatever Switch uses, but to provide exposure that the Mac client after all these years still doesn't have a native client.

You're trying to say that since Windows doesn't have Dx12/Vulkan, or that Switch that for some questionable decision may use a translation layer, that a Mac native client is a really low priority or that it will never happen like some kind of "gotcha" moment to contradict what this thread is about, I agree with it must be a really low priority or not a priority at all for SE but independently of what Switch uses it doesn't change the fact that the game needs to have a native Mac client as we pay for a Mac license, and if Switch somehow isn't using it (Which would be laughable), then there's a reason to port the code to ARM then as there will be 2 officially supported platforms that pay for the game and should be properly supported, we'll know when the game releases for Switch I suppose.

Again, if you'd like to talk about Windows or Switch I'm sure there are multiple threads about it, but since you insist to talk about it, Vulkan or Dx12 for Windows, what benefit would it bring anyway? if it hasn't happened there it is because they don't see a reason yet for it to happen this game is mostly CPU bound not GPU which is what you're asking for the Windows version, changing graphic libraries may not bring the benefits you may be thinking of, the game already runs well there anyway from what I remember, unless you mean having Vulkan support to add linux support at some point? that will never happen even if they add Vulkan, not even WoW supports Linux, and the game already runs pretty well in Proton from what i've seen.

And it's not like I'd care anyway I don't have a Windows machine or a Switch 2 so it is whatever for me, I'm not the person you want to have this conversation, while a Mac native can vastly improve the performance in Mac if it ever happens for some reason (Like it happens already in other Mac games and how it happens in WoW) which is what this thread is about, the Mac version and how it should have a native client, and I'll continue asking for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uzephi

Then simple: edit the comparison out of your OP. You brought this conversation about by bringing an improper comparison in your post. There is no proof the Switch 2 port is running native ARM code and evidence proves otherwise. If a brand new client/console isn't getting native support for its architecture, what in the world makes you think an old client for an OS the developer barely acknowledges would get it also?

Edit: and even if, somehow, that S2 client is running native ARM code. Would you want that slideshow on your Mac? Serious question, if the S2 cannot handle more than 30fps, how much would your Mac Fair... If this client was running native ARM code and performing that horribly... Remember; the S2 can run some pretty demanding titles at 60 fps docked, so the fact a game that easily runs at 60 fps on last gen hardware barely running 30 fps is pretty bad. I'm all for you getting a native client, but you wouldn't want the S2 client even if it was running native ARM.

---

I never said it will get it, quite the opposite, but as I explained in my previous post, now that there are 2 ARM platforms they both should get proper support, it's not like we ask it for free.

Most likely the potential playerbase on the Switch just completly dwarves the tiny tiny playerbase of Mac Users. Making a client for Mac is most likely not worth the effort that Squenix needs to put into it. That might suck for the Mac Users but from a business point of view makes totally sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultran

Most likely the potential playerbase on the Switch just completly dwarves the tiny tiny playerbase of Mac Users. Making a client for Mac is most likely not worth the effort that Squenix needs to put into it. That might suck for the Mac Users but from a business point of view makes totally sense.

---

Indeed, this has always been the case, however i don't believe it's that small otherwise they may have dropped support when Apple silicon released like Elder Scrolls Online did, but they didn't, so there's still hope now that there are 2 ARM platforms they may consider improving the Mac version as well, unlikely but thus the reason for this thread.