Apple TV to dual as casual gaming device - Page 2

I think it was confused with "double", which is the standard convention. It appears that "double" would be the correct word to use, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

They still have to pay the developer of the games. There's no word on whether the games are designed as a profit maker for Apple like their hardware, or if it is just a carrot to entice hardware buying, like the rest of the iTunes store is designed to be, and probably much of Apple's software seems to be.

Why would you need a WiFi remote, its a bit overkill for the data that you need to transmit isnt it? BlueTooth, RF, or IR would seem the more logical choices unless you are going to make the controller a more robust device than a simple remote.

If it's a game controller, then WiFi isn't necessarily overkill, I think many of the wireless game controllers use WiFi. IR would be a bad choice for a game controller. AppleTV has these two. For RF or Bluetooth, Apple isn't claiming they have either in AppleTV. I don't think they've said what they are doing with the USB port, but I think using that for a wireless receiver dongle would be pretty odd.

• Infrared would offer too much delay. Did you know: The first Nintendo prototype had wireless, infrared controllers.
• Bluetooth (like the Nintendo Wii controllers) would be fine but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that AppleTV will have Bluetooth.
• 802.11b is small, cheap and uses low enough power to work well as a game controller.

If I recall correctly, the initial Tech Specs page for the AppleTV made no direct mention of IR despite the listing of a typical Apple remote; however, now they do list an IR receiver on the page.

Since Apple isn't having to cash in from hardware losses the games will be reasonably priced. They will still make a profit, but nothing exuberant like from console or PC games. I think that Apple will keep the current pricing for simple games (the ones currently sold at iTS) and will also have more complex games at a higher, standard price down the road.

I love how Apple is competing with so many companies these days without directly competing with them. These MMORPGs (I had to look up the correct initialism) are just too much for me to wrap my head around and are way to much of a commitment for me to learn. Obvoisuly, I'm not a gamer but I will have no problem spending $5 or $10 for a simple game that I can learn in 60 seconds and play with my family and friends.

World of Warcraft is monkey crack - if you try it you will like it, guaranteed.

But, it's so fun when they do it.

I believe you, which is why I will never even sign up for a free trial. I don't have enough time in my day as it is.

Interesting that they didn't say ".... cannot be played on THE Apple TV".

(yes, I know, it's obvious that other Apple TVs will come out).

No offense, but they probably said the same thing when a little think known as the Playstation came out. It preceeded to basically take Sega and Nintendo out of the game console equation. Nintendo might finally be recovering with the Wii (assuming the novelty doesn't wear thing and worthwhile games keep coming), but Sega dropped out of the race completely. Doesn't seem unreasonable that someone else could come out with a console that would do the same to the Playstation.

Also, how does every dollar go to Apple? If EA puts one of their games on the AppleTV (like they've done for the iPod), they're going to get a piece of that pie. Unless Apple suddenly shocks us all and starts churning out games, it will primarily be third party games. Even look at the iPod. What has Apple managed to produce? A Blockout/Arkanoid clone and a Poker game. Neither would be considered terribly innovative.

And really, how would Apple be hurt if they sold a "$700 glorified DVD player" that also played games? Right now, the AppleTV is a $300 glorified DVD player that requires content be purchased exclusively from iTunes (I'm excluded ripping DVD's because that's not something the layman is really going to be doing and is also in the gray area of legality) along with a widescreen TV and broadband internet connection. I know I paid a premium on the iMac I own because of the Apple logo on it. Sure, I got the iLife apps and a built-in camera, but I've used that about zero time. I love my iMac, but I'm also not delusional about it.

I think this makes a lot of sense. I think Apple was correct about owning music, not renting it, but I think movies are VERY VERY different.

Unless Apple has a rental model, I am not interested in iTV for movies. Subscription service would be great, but I'd settle for a $1.99/movie with a 7 day time limit, no problem. I'd also be willing to do a monthly subscription that would be equal to $1/movie per month. So $10/month would let me rent 10 movies a month. Maybe having the monthly subscription start at $10/month. I'm not willing to spend more than $1.99 for on-line only content.

A possibly iPhone/Apple TV related article...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6164823.html

Interesting, because the Wii controllers use both bluetooth and IR to interface with the console.

I know, I know... They really do plan ahead... Those are ALL pluses... Because:
Scenario A. Clueless consumer goes and buys an iPhone and uses it with the iTV gets into the ball game and gets an iPhone Home Run. Clueless consumer either A. buys new iPhone jacking up Apple sales, or B. follows scenario B.

Scenario B. Prudent consumer goes and buys skins for the iPhone with a rubberized grip for game playing... Since they are more 'substantial' than other skins they cost more helping the iPod/iPhone Apple affilliates.

Premium? I found it less to get the iMac then buy a comperable PC... Building your own aside, of course...

I did mean Bluetooth.

NIIICE! Clearly I need to grow my understanding of verbing. I can opportunize many more words.

Unboxing photos of new "retro" Apple joyStick.!!! OMG!!


only $99 each!

I guess it's obvious that the iPhone would be able to play games, but here're some more strings from iTunes

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2007-03-06/#6499

"4301.161" = "Are you sure you want to sync games? All existing games on the mobile phone ^1 will be replaced with games from this iTunes library.";
"4301.162" = "Are you sure you do not want to sync games? All existing games on the mobile phone ^1 will be removed.";
"4301.163" = "Syncing games on ^1";
"4309.126" = "Songs cannot be added to ^1 because all of its space has been reserved for data.";
"4309.127" = "Syncing contacts on ^1";
"4309.128" = "Syncing calendars on ^1";
"4309.145" = "The Apple TV ^1 is synced with contacts and calendars on another computer. Do you want to sync with this computer and replace all existing contacts and calendars on this Apple TV with those from this computer?";

Not sure what video processor the iPhone uses, but if it used one of the nVidia mobile chips it should be pretty good for games too.

Interesting.
Apple hasn't demonstrated the calendar and contact interface from within Frontrow

Seing this makes me think that the AppleTV may be facilitating backups of important data, but not directly accessible data.

No, I'm sure that message is more meant as a "How dare you copy that game you bought and try to take it to your friends house to play! You can't do that! That's illegal sharing!"

That's how you should read that (woohoo! More DRM, this time restricting us where we can play our games!).