raaahbin.7405

This now appears to be resolved, and the 32-bit client launches again... for the next few weeks, anyway!

If the OP is in a similar situation to me, they may have a Mac for which Boot Camp doesn't work (it may once have worked, but my recent attempts to install Windows 7 - the last theoretically supported system on this model - have comprehensively failed, as I gather they have done for others from what I've found online). Wine-based compatibility layers (PlayOnMac, Crossover) allow me to install the 64-bit Windows client, but it is effectively unplayable (I can move around solo [getting a small single-digit number of frames per second], but if I try something like a world boss it completely stops working - as in, "force-quit the whole Wine system" stops). Virtualisation (Parallels) can't cope with the processing overhead either. The 32-bit version, buggy as it might have been, at least allowed me to continue playing after they abandoned the Mac 64-bit client. But appears to have gone too now. GFN sounds like the only practical solution remaining - it just doesn't exist in my part of the world yet (supposedly coming later this year... but then, so is my next computer). It's a pity that ANet decided updating the Mac client to new tech wasn't worth their efforts (especially since they're now killing the 32-bit Windows client under the pretext of updating the 64-bit client to new tech). The videos online of people playing the native WoW client on M1-based Macs are absolutely incredible for a consumer laptop - a solid 60fps at max graphics settings. If I could only find a way to play the GW2 game using the WoW client... 😆

The irony in all of this is that one of GW2's excellent points of demarcation against other MMORPGs - a single purchase model rather than a monthly subscription - has effectively vanished. Once they've killed all the clients they used to support (except the Win64 client), a whole bunch of people will now be stuck paying Nvidia a monthly subscription fee to continue to access the game that we thought we had purchased.

A month early would be a lot (which is why I suspect it's accidental rather than intentional). But yes - I can confirm a fresh 32-bit install has exactly the same looping failure, while a 64-bit install launches fine.

That's a definitive answer to the wrong question (although personally I'm glad you drew my attention to it! More bad news for the Old Hardware crew). The OP asked if Nvidia Geforce Now would continue to be an officially supported/authorised way to access the game. Given they're now dropping support for everything except an up-to-date 64-bit Windows box, I wouldn't risk pre-purchasing EoD. Wait until it's released, see how things go, make sure things still work after 31 August on whatever your particular platform is. I don't see any reason why they'd actively *stop* letting users access the game through GFN - from ANet's point of view, GFN is just a whole bunch of up-to-date Windows game clients running on good hardware, so as long as they continue to support the game at all, GFN should remain supported. That is, if you happen to live in a part of the world where GFN is available. As for the rest of us... guess I'll be taking a break from GW2 until GFN launches in Australia.

So this could throw a large spanner in the works for many of the remaining options to play on Mac: As I read it, every solution that depends on running a 32-bit client (including the last one which works for me) will end on 31 August.

The same is happening to me. I'm running the 32 bit client (can't run the 64 bit on this system). It appears to be downloading a new Gw2.tmp, replacing the existing Gw2.exe, which then launches and immediately downloads a new Gw2.tmp, replaces the (just downloaded) Gw2.exe, and repeat ad infinitum. Cannot launch the game. I'm glad it's not just me!

No - I've got a copy of the old-old Mac 32-bit client, which hasn't been available for download for years, but still runs if you are running an old enough version of MacOS to support 32-bit apps (anything before Catalina). As I understand it, it still works because it's just a wrapper for the Windows 32-bit client, so as long as they keep updating the Windows 32-bit client it is indirectly "supported". If you have a newer Mac, I would recommend the PlayOnMac/Crossover approach, as the performance will be better, and obviously if your Mac is running Catalina or newer that is your only option. However, if you have a really old Mac like mine, the 32-bit client is your best bet. PM me if you want info on how to download it.

Thanks - when I eventually get an M1 mac I'll try that out. For now I'm using the 32-bit client on an old macbook, so "mount not appearing" is my default experience. 😑

Have you also tried Crossover on the M1? I thought Crossover only worked on Intel, but the home page says it works on Apple Silicon as well. Curious to know which performs better on the platform that has to emulate everything no matter what.

I watched this and it made me sad about what could have been... so I thought I'd share the sadness:

If you contact me directly, I could connect you to a source for the 32-bit installer. Will avoid doing anything which might conflict with forum rules, but Google and my username should suffice.

Agreed - the 32-bit client still runs well if you're on a version of Mac OS that will still launch 32-bit apps. It's a lifesaver on my 10-year-old Macbook Pro. Literally the only thing I miss (once it's running) is the mini-map. If you're on a version that will not run 32-bit apps, you're probably also on a computer that can handle the overheads of one of the emulated solutions in this thread. Later this year, I'm planning to buy one of the next generation of Apple Silicon Macbooks, so that will be time to fire up the ARM versions of Parallels and Windows... glad to hear from others on this thread that that apparently works pretty well! Also, I'm pleased to see that Geforce Now is supposed to launch in Australia some time this year... so that might become an option instead, depending on pricing and service quality.

It's definitely every time the map is loaded (e.g. entering or leaving an instance set in Lion's Arch), but I can't remember whether waypointing within the map had the same delay. What's interesting is that the wine-wrapped 32-bit windows version also suffers the same long load time (and it's almost exactly the same amount of time)... but the one wrapped by ANet as a Mac client performs noticeably better once it loads.

Nope! That's why I'm hoping it will survive (given that it's apparently the Windows client in a wrapper). The long load time for maps (especially Lion's Arch) isn't wonderful, and not having the mini-map is a pain... but it's the closest thing to playable remaining.

Report on some of the above options from a 10-year-old 13" Macbook Pro (2.7GHz Intel core i7, integrated graphics). All graphics settings are manually set to the lowest available (i.e. best possible performance) Baseline (native 64-bit client):Load into Lion's Arch from character select screen: 42 secLion's Arch - standing still: 7 fpsLion's Arch - running/turning: 2-5 fps The above is playable - just! (honestly, it is - it's what I've been playing on for months) Unsupported (and no longer available) Mac 32-bit client:Load to Lion's Arch: 2m33sLion's Arch - standing still: 8-9 fpsLion's Arch - running/turning: 3-8 fps "supported" options after ANet kill the 64-bit client: PortingKit - 64-bit Windows client:Load to Lion's Arch: 45 secLion's Arch - standing still: 7 fpsLion's Arch - running/turning: 1-4 fps, bottoming out at less than 1 fps PlayOnMac - 32-bit Windows client:Load to Lion's Arch: 2m33sLion's Arch - standing still: 2-7 fpsLion's Arch - running/turning: 1-2 fps, bottoming out at less than 1 fps Even by my obviously very low standards, the wine-based options are completely unplayable on hardware this old. So the only hope for anyone else in the same boat is that they don't kill the 32-bit Mac client (and that you can get your hands on a copy of it if you don't still have it).

Everyone has different tastes/preferences/considerations. I’ve only ever played the game on really old Mac hardware (because that’s what I’ve got), but I still enjoy the game very much, and am worried that ANet’s move to actively kill the Mac client might bring that enjoyment to an end. What others have the luxury of calling “unplayable” is certainly playable... I just have to accept there are things I can’t do (things that require a rapid response loop between the interface and player input). I can still join in big metas and world bosses, explore the world, do story content, play some WvW, fractals. There’s plenty to enjoy. Would I like it to be faster, smoother and prettier? Of course! But playing can still be fun even with bad performance on low graphics. For me, it only becomes unplayable below about 3 FPS... which, unfortunately, is what I get out of the wine wrappers on the 64-bit client. Of the available options: GFN - not available in Australia, and requires higher spec hardware than I haveBoot Camp to win8/10 - not supported (hardware too old)Wine wrappers - 32-bit Windows client barely playable, but noticeably worse than either native clientVirtualisation - overhead too much for hardware64-bit Mac client - ANet about to go all “hasta la vista” on it 32-bit Mac client - best remaining playable after ANet kill the 64-bit I’ll be upgrading my computer this year. It will be an M1 Mac because GW2 is the only game I play, and most of what I use my computer for is not GW2 - ANet’s move doesn’t change that. That should let me play well through GFN (if and when Nvidia make it available in Aus), and in the meantime it looks like Parallels+Windows ARM is the best solution. It looks like that yields about 40fps on best performance settings, and that will feel like luxury indeed by comparison to what I’ve always had.

Note for anyone trying the PlayOnMac route: it appears the current version of PlayOnMac requires MacOS 10.15.x or greater. If you have an older operating system, you will need to download a previous version - I understand POM 4.3.4 supports earlier MacOS versions: https://repository.playonlinux.com/PlayOnMac/PlayOnMac_4.3.4.dmg Also, if you're on a really old system like me, you might need to opt for 32bit (be sure to match 32bit virtual drive in PlayOnMac instructions step 9, and the 32bit installer for GW2) - PlayOnMac failed on my system when it tried to create a 64bit virtual drive.

The 32-bit Mac Client hasn't even been available for download for years. I'm sure it has been completely unsupported ever since. But yesterday evening I tried launching it, and it worked just like it always has. Hopefully - if it's just the Windows 32-bit client in an emulation wrapper as @Healix.5819 said - it will keep running like it does now. It's a bit buggy, and I can both make and drink a cup of coffee in the time it takes to load Lions Arch... but on really old Mac hardware such as mine, it will be the only viable option if the 64-bit native client is actively killed rather than merely left to degrade over time.

That makes sense - thank you! Hopefully that means I can just return to playing the 32-bit Mac client when they kill the 64-bit client, since that at least still runs and appears to outperform the DIY emulation solutions in this thread (at least on 10 year old hardware).

Also, it seems there could be a few other options here: 1) ANet make money from the content and in-game purchases, not the client, which they give away. Why not make the clients (all) open-source? If there's enough interest in the community to keep developing or even rebuild the Mac client completely to support all the new tech, then ANet get all the benefit with none of the cost outlay? 2) If they insist on keeping it closed source, they could post a kickstarter for the cost of developing a new mac client. If it succeeds, we're all happy, and if it fails, we've only got ourselves to blame. After all, lots of people here saying that Mac owners have more dollars than sense, right? 3) I actually think approaching Apple to approach ANet with a funding/promotion proposal is a good one. Apple have amazing new computers with GPU cores built-in, to the SOC, and what better way to promote it than by announcing support to a small(ish) but dedicated gaming community, and ANet get publicity as well as direct support? Killing the client and saying "just go emulate, soz" seems a poor choice by comparison to any of the above.

The statement that the Mac client will not work after 18 February is, in a word, bizarre. I still have a copy of the 32-bit Mac client, which has been unsupported for years, and it still runs. On a really old Mac, the frame rate in the 32-bit version is slightly superior to the 64-bit (although there are bugs in the 32-bit version which will obviously never be fixed - random coherent host crashes when attempting to launch the game, mini-map is blacked out, maps like Lions Arch take literally minutes to load)... but it's playable. If they are being truthful in their statement that they will actively prevent the 64-bit Mac client from launching into the game, the 32-bit Mac client is what I'll have to revert to using (my computer is far too old to support any other alternative). I'd be fine with the statement that "this is no longer supported and may stop working at any time; you can't make in-game purchases, and technical support is no longer available"... but that isn't what they've said. They've said they'll prevent the client from working in less than a month. I know: Apple are the bad guys, ANet are the good guys. When it comes to the challenges facing ANet as to whether or not to continue developing a Mac client, that's a reasonable conclusion to reach. However, ANet are in control of whether or not they actively kill the client or allow it to keep working for as long as it happens to work. I reckon a lot of Mac players would be much happier if they went with option 2.

What confuses me about all of this is... why are Anet actively killing the Mac client (i.e. "it will not run after x date") rather than simply dropping support? By contrast, you can still play the game with the 32-bit Mac client (long since unsupported) - it works, it just has problems (e.g. random coherent host crashes on launch, takes forever to load Lion's Arch)... but gameplay is acceptable and even a slightly better frame-rate on my super old hardware (~10 years old) compared to the 64-bit version. I'd be absolutely fine if they just said "we're not going to support it, any bugs you encounter from here on out will be your own problem" - I'd live with that, and see how the only game I play might affect future computer purchase decisions. For now, my computer is old enough that reverting to the 32-bit Mac client is probably my only option if they force the 64-bit client not to run at all. They didn't actively kill the 32-bit Mac client - you just can't download it any more and it is 100% unsupported - so why nuke the ability of the 64-bit client to even log on, instead just have it say "this is no longer supported, and may stop working at any time"?

So this thread ended up being a rather disappointing "how it started"/"how it's going", didn't it? I get that Anet don't have much in the way of resources to develop for new tech, and possibly the whole thing is gradually going out backwards, but flat out killing the mac client (not just dropping support, but explicitly making it not run at all) is a worse turn of events than most would have hoped for. GW2 is currently listed as 3-star on Crossover (which is "runs, has significant problems"), but I suppose we can see what other Wine wrappers can achieve on M1/Rosetta2 for the time being.

You could have done that. Simply save the key you're given when creating the authenticator, which can be used to recreate it as many times as you want. Have you tried doing that? I thought the point of the setup key for the authenticator was that it was single use - as soon as you activate the authenticator, the only thing that will verify you is the single-use key generated by the authenticator, not the original setup key. But, if you say that setup key should work to restore the authenticator, I might give that a try this time... if I decide it's even worth the risk of turning 2FA back on. It looks like I'll be back home by the time my ticket floats to the top of the pile, so I'm inclined just to leave 2FA off until they build in some measure of resilience. It shouldn't be hard to allow users to activate both SMS and Authenticator 2FA, but it's hard to know what decisions have been made on the back end.