or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple developing 3D gaming controller for Apple TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple developing 3D gaming controller for Apple TV - Page 2

post #41 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukaz View Post

@Clive

1- I didn't say Macs weren't limited in hardware in this point, after all no console can have its graphics crad or RAM replaced or increased. But compare a Mac's hardware with equivalent Dells and you see the diference is not that huge. Then compare Wii's 700Mhz processor, 128 MB of ram and some 30-50 MB of video to PS3's 3 GHZ processor, 256MB of XDR and its 256 card and things start to get more creepy.
2- All of the game you've mentioned are developed by Nintendo, with more knowlogde about their own console and with developers more concentrated in producing a great game rather than just impress everyone with the controller as half of Wii's developers are doing (Rayman Raving Rabids sunk a great franchise)
3- I've mentioned before I don't care about graphics alone, but.... they could have been a *bit* more generous with Wii's hardware.

@Melgross

Have you missed the fact that a large bunch of people that bought the Wii are more casual games and many never had much contact with a console? Yeah, I may have exagerated with the burning stuff but the diference between Wii and PS3 in HUGE, my friend.

To tell the truth, I have no idea what the term "casual games" means. this seems to be a definition that people apply for games they themselves don't play.

My daughter and her friends play all sorts of games, at all levels, very few would fit into what I suspect is the causal games definition. they are very intense, and graphically excellent.

You would be surprised at how well a good Tv can upconvert 480p widescreen. It looks pretty close to the 1080p my set does so very well.

The PS3 looks even better, but the Wii is surprisingly good.

The main difference is not the graphics themselves, because all game graphics are about the same, though the PS3's is higher resolution, with greater detail. The difference is in the motion, and smoothness of the play.

It all looks artificial and fake, so it doesn't bother me either way.
post #42 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Well, I guess the article clearly talk about a game controlled \

Many games won't work all that well with a different input method. What I'm really saying is that one shouldn't expect anywhere near all games to be ported, and some will get bad ports.
post #43 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

Exterior: Mariani Avenue, Cupertino CA.
Interior: Dolly through glass doors, pan across Bosendorfer piano.
Zoom to double doors, open, revealing tall figure, fifty-ish, close cropped grey hair, blaf mock turtleneck, stonewashed jeans, no belt.
POV reverses.
Waist-up shot, two asian men, black suits, hands outstretched, palms up, one holds a WII controller, the other a small pile of papers. They bow at the waist, simultaneously.
"Wii would like to sue you."

I don't know who really owns the patent on this tech, but I have used digital whiteboards that utilize the infrared bar with the camera in the pen. This technology has been around for a longtime now, how do you think motion capture works?

I could see Apple making simple games for it, but I don't think it will happen anytime in the near future. (I hope I'm wrong though.)
post #44 of 69
Apple really need to partner better with companies instead of trying to go it alone. Apple are struggling to sell ATVs because they are extremely bad value for money. Nintendo already aim for family entertainment. Now Apple want multi-motion remotes.

With an ATV Wii, Nintendo get movie content for family entertainment, Apple get better ITMS support due to a larger audience and the boxes sell more because they have way more functionality.

The Wii has a DVD drive so ATV users won't complain about that and the Wii is a lot more compact and cooler. All Apple really need to do is put their software on the Wii and sell it as a bundle like Wii-fit.

Maybe the Wii would need a hard drive addon or something though.
post #45 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The main difference is not the graphics themselves, because all game graphics are about the same, though the PS3's is higher resolution, with greater detail. The difference is in the motion, and smoothness of the play.

It all looks artificial and fake, so it doesn't bother me either way.

So what else *is* there graphics technology-wise than resolution, detail, motion and smoothness?

I'm definitely of the school that puts gameplay first, but Wii runs out of steam in more ways than just pure graphics. Here's a simple example: Super Stardust HD. It's a straightforward arcade game, with simple geometry, but the Wii would not handle it just due to the amount of stuff that is pushed on the screen to create the desired gameplay pace and feel. All those itty bitty shards of rocks are significant game elements. Destructible environments are still on the way rather than standard, but they'll be huge. Shadows are very calculation intensive and can be used for great gameplay, not just graphics effect. Fluid physics have been a little too hard so far, but they'll definitely be used for gameplay in near future. Visible developments in AI have been few in the past years, IMO (probably because it isn't an easy selling point), but even in its current status it is sometimes hungry for power.

Resolution also matters beyond looking good. Sometimes you need a lot of information to fit on the screen. Just look at RTS games' evolution, or even FPS's like TF2. For meaningful gameplay, making decisions in the game, you have to be able to recognize lots of stuff on the screen at a glance. 480p only stretches so far.
post #46 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraklinc View Post

Games you can buy straight from Home without going to a retailer makes a lot of sense. Apple tv has a intel chip inside so am pretty sure it can do a lot move than served as a portal to rent movies
& watch youtube videos. A year ago everyone Laugh on how it couldn't handle HD, and this year they solve that with a simple Update

Now Apple has it's own chip company (PA Semi) which is specialized in high efficiency low power drain PowerPC chips who is to say they won't be able to throw one or two of these chips in the AppleTV and give it as much horse power as a Xbox360 or PS3? From memory both Xbox360 and PS3 chips are also PowerPC based (Cell) architectures which would make porting games to AppleTV running a Power Architecture not too hard for developers.

Then again there was recent talk of PA Semi getting taken over by Apple to Apple could fund the completion of their next gen processor. Perhaps the next gen chip is planned for use in AppleTV as well as Time Capsule (which runs too hot and needs processor that throttles down for the 99% of time it's not in use)
MacPro Dual 3GHz Quad-Core
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro 17"
iMac 24"
iPhone v1 / iTouch v1
AppleTV
Apple IIe (Go Castle Wolfenstein! - Halt! - Kommen Sie!)
Reply
MacPro Dual 3GHz Quad-Core
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro 17"
iMac 24"
iPhone v1 / iTouch v1
AppleTV
Apple IIe (Go Castle Wolfenstein! - Halt! - Kommen Sie!)
Reply
post #47 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

Many games won't work all that well with a different input method. What I'm really saying is that one shouldn't expect anywhere near all games to be ported, and some will get bad ports.

I disagree, just because current games uses conventional does mean that it is the one and only. Just look at how the iPhone used touch technology in a way no one else did. We will never know how good ported iPhone games will be until we try them.

What I was talking about was games ported from iPhone to possible AppleTV. I don't think the input method will be different. A game controller with motion sensor and few buttons won't be any different from the iPhone. Games that uses the iPhone multi-touch feature can also be done easily some way or another without having to "rub" your TV.
post #48 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

So what else *is* there graphics technology-wise than resolution, detail, motion and smoothness?

I'm definitely of the school that puts gameplay first, but Wii runs out of steam in more ways than just pure graphics. Here's a simple example: Super Stardust HD. It's a straightforward arcade game, with simple geometry, but the Wii would not handle it just due to the amount of stuff that is pushed on the screen to create the desired gameplay pace and feel. All those itty bitty shards of rocks are significant game elements. Destructible environments are still on the way rather than standard, but they'll be huge. Shadows are very calculation intensive and can be used for great gameplay, not just graphics effect. Fluid physics have been a little too hard so far, but they'll definitely be used for gameplay in near future. Visible developments in AI have been few in the past years, IMO (probably because it isn't an easy selling point), but even in its current status it is sometimes hungry for power.

Resolution also matters beyond looking good. Sometimes you need a lot of information to fit on the screen. Just look at RTS games' evolution, or even FPS's like TF2. For meaningful gameplay, making decisions in the game, you have to be able to recognize lots of stuff on the screen at a glance. 480p only stretches so far.

I'm not saying that the Wii is up to the standards of the 360 or the PS3. All I'm saying is that the graphics aren't that bad when compared to the others.

You were complaining about how you couldn't even look at them, and that they were only good enough for casual gamers.

That's clearly not true, even if it lags behind.

It really doesn't matter if some games for the other platforms wouldn't play well on the Wii. for what it is designed to do, it does well, and that's all that matters.
post #49 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not saying that the Wii is up to the standards of the 360 or the PS3. All I'm saying is that the graphics aren't that bad when compared to the others.

And I'm saying the Wii suffers from lack of power in gameplay, not just graphics. The graphics gap itself will only grow further, BTW. Wii, being the same hardware as GC, is largely tapped out. The other consoles' titles still have room to improve graphically.

The graphics are in an entirely different class when you can't port other consoles' games on it - not to mention when you can't even make a particular *type* of game work. There are two reasons for why everything doesn't look bad on it: 1) the games come from a small subset of games that are judged viable on it, and 2) almost everything good on Wii is first party which gives the devs a special incentive to make it fit, to make it work.
Quote:
You were complaining about how you couldn't even look at them, and that they were only good enough for casual gamers.

I wasn't, you got people mixed up. The little I have seen of Wii's graphics (SMG, Excite Truck, Wii Sports) was not irritatingly ugly, maybe a little spartan at times.
Quote:
It really doesn't matter if some games for the other platforms wouldn't play well on the Wii. for what it is designed to do, it does well, and that's all that matters.

It doesn't get so many good games. Of course that matters.
post #50 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

And I'm saying the Wii suffers from lack of power in gameplay, not just graphics. The graphics gap itself will only grow further, BTW. Wii, being the same hardware as GC, is largely tapped out. The other consoles' titles still have room to improve graphically.

The graphics are in an entirely different class when you can't port other consoles' games on it - not to mention when you can't even make a particular *type* of game work. There are two reasons for why everything doesn't look bad on it: 1) the games come from a small subset of games that are judged viable on it, and 2) almost everything good on Wii is first party which gives the devs a special incentive to make it fit, to make it work.I wasn't, you got people mixed up. The little I have seen of Wii's graphics (SMG, Excite Truck, Wii Sports) was not irritatingly ugly, maybe a little spartan at times.It doesn't get so many good games. Of course that matters.

Hmmm!

It seems I'm carrying on conversations with two people at once about the same thing.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Lukaz.

Ok, now I've got it straight.

The only point I was trying to make, to Lukaz, was that the graphics weren't so bad that they were difficult to look at.

Everything I've said was just focussed on that.
post #51 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by drjjones View Post

Make games for Apple Tv and I'll buy one. But i have to have a need first.

I suspect the implementation of games for the AppleTV will basically be so the iPhone users can come home & continue their game they started earlier in the day on the large screen comfort of their TV. I could be wrong but I very much doubt it will directly compete with game consoles marketing to high end 3D gaming or multiplayer consoles like the Wii. The features of this remote indicate more that it will support these features that will likely be deployed by some game developers to use the accelerometer & gyro-position of the iPhone. Can't exactly continue your racecar game from your iPhone if on your AppleTV you have no way to steer your car.

This is going to get very interesting, Apple has a way of bringing technologies to markets that no one thought would even want it & making it into a success. Their rapid growth has largely been in their appeal to bringing the average computer user into the world of complicated multimedia & making it simple for them.
post #52 of 69
maybe Apple should just dip into that giant wad of cash they've got lying around and buy nintendo...

all their games would become much more fun.
post #53 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Hmmm!

It seems I'm carrying on conversations with two people at once about the same thing.

You're right, I got you mixed up with Lukaz.

Ok, now I've got it straight.

The only point I was trying to make, to Lukaz, was that the graphics weren't so bad that they were difficult to look at.

Everything I've said was just focussed on that.

Ok, I exagerated... sorry.

But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...
post #54 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukaz View Post

But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...

But the hardware isn't the same, just not as big of a rev as the other systems did. The CPU is clocked 50% faster. The graphics is also clocked 50% faster and has another die added within the package. There's little information on the changes to the dies, but it's still a lot faster. There's a lot more memory too.

Even though I don't think I'd buy one, I think it's a nifty system. If I had an SDTV, then I'd probably consider it.
post #55 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukaz View Post

Ok, I exagerated... sorry.

But my point is that Nintendo should have made Wii a *bit* more graphically powerful. As Gon said, the hardware is the same of the GC...

Nintendo did exactly what they should have done.

It really doesn't matter that you aren't happy with that. They really don't care.

They are the biggest seller of game machines by far, using some sales numbers, and that proves them right.

All the Wii is, is a warmed over Cube. And that's all it was intended to be, and that's all it has to be.

By doing that, they were able to come out with the machine on time, and on price, so that they make a good profit on each one, as well as the games and accessories (even for the ones they don't make themselves).

Most people don't care about the higher quality of the 360 and PS3. That's just the facts.

We are having a related discussion on other threads about why Blu-Ray isn't selling many stand-alone players. At the price, many people won't buy them. They are buying the PS3 for that purpose though.

But, as a pure game machine, so far, both the 360 and PS3 aren't challenging the Wii too much, though the Ps3 is doing better at times in that.

Perhaps if both the 360 and PS3 weren't quite so advanced, their price would have been more in line with the Wii, and they would have come out sooner, with less programming problems, which would have resulted in both selling more units. But, it is what it is for now. Later, as their prices drop, and I expect the PS3 to eventually drop more than the 360, this will change. But, Nintendo could very well have a new unit out by then.

No, the Wii is exactly what it has to be. It has great games, people love the controllers, and it's very popular.

You can't argue with that and hope to be credible.
post #56 of 69
I hate to tell you but two different companies can patent two different ways to accomplish the same thing. Moreover, the supporters of Konfabulator in my view are acting like a bunch of hypocritical crybabies. Apple didn't copy the idea. Moreover, Konfabulator didn't patent their idea because it was an old idea. In fact, it was one Apple used itself in System Seven called Desktop Accessories (way before Konfabulator came along). Apple often drops ideas and brings them back later. Timemachine is a good example of a revisited idea. Apple for the most part buys ideas that it wants to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

hahahaha *swish*

Undoubtedly Nintendo must hold the patent to this technology........ RIGHT??? You'd think, at least.

Either this will be denied by the patent board and Apple will have to license the technology, or they'll bully their way in *somehow*. I can't see how this is different enough from the Wii interface to warrant its own patent...

The Apple remote, however, lacks accelerometers... so at least it's not a dead knock-off... (or as I like to call them... "Konfabulators").

Still... leave it to Apple to bully their way into Nintendo's gaming scene. I will be very upset if Nintendo suffers at Apple's hand.

-Clive
post #57 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I hate to tell you but two different companies can patent two different ways to accomplish the same thing. Moreover, the supporters of Konfabulator in my view are acting like a bunch of hypocritical crybabies. Apple didn't copy the idea. Moreover, Konfabulator didn't patent their idea because it was an old idea. In fact, it was one Apple used itself in System Seven called Desktop Accessories (way before Konfabulator came along). Apple often drops ideas and brings them back later. Timemachine is a good example of a revisited idea. Apple for the most part buys ideas that it wants to use.

I've often thought of giving up on explaining this to people.

They don't seem to understand that ideas, and concepts, aren't patentable. Only products and processes are.

The idea that a 3D controller, such as the one Nintendo has, is locking out anyone else is laughable.

what about the Gyro Mouse, which came out years before Nintendo ever got the idea for theirs?

People have to understand the fact that there can be "more than one way to skin a cat", to use an unpleasant expression.

There are no doubt, numerous ways of implementing this with both the software and hardware. I wouldn't be surprised if several companies come out with their own methods, all patented.
post #58 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Nintendo did exactly what they should have done.

All the Wii is, is a warmed over Cube. And that's all it was intended to be, and that's all it has to be.

After using a Wii more, I agree. It won't play GTA 4 but for its target audience, it was designed correctly.

I found the games to be quite boring after about half an hour but for parties and quick games, it seems to work well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Perhaps if both the 360 and PS3 weren't quite so advanced, their price would have been more in line with the Wii, and they would have come out sooner, with less programming problems

Actually the XBox 360 is almost exactly the same price as the Wii:

xbox 360

Wii

some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, the Wii is exactly what it has to be. It has great games, people love the controllers, and it's very popular.

They made a decision to favor controls over performance and it works in certain situations. That method means that interactivity is key to the gameplay. The performance of the other consoles means that developers don't have to worry so much about game scale and can focus on the story. Both methods have advantages.

It seems clear that Apple prefer the Nintendo route in their products. Less features, less power, more compact, higher premium for the spec, family oriented, intuitive controls. Again, this works for certain situations but not all of them.

Some people like the Wii/iMac, others prefer the XBox/xMac.

Whether the Apple TV needs that kind of control, I don't know. I don't think it will really add anything to it. The Wii makes the controller the core of the gameplay, Apple TV is for media, which does not need a 3D controller.

I still think that rather than adding stuff to a bad product, they need to get rid of it and just turn ipods into Apple TVs using a dock. An ipod classic with a bigger HD than ATV is cheaper. Have a dock where you can sit an ipod on it and watch the movies or listen to the music and then you can take it to work with you without having to do extra syncing.
post #59 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

After using a Wii more, I agree. It won't play GTA 4 but for its target audience, it was designed correctly.

I found the games to be quite boring after about half an hour but for parties and quick games, it seems to work well.

I think you;l have to admit to being a bit prejudiced here. The games for the Wii are aimed at a somewhat different audience. not necessarily a casual gaming audience, but simply different games.

It's just notyour cup of tea.

Quote:
Actually the XBox 360 is almost exactly the same price as the Wii:

xbox 360

Not when it's equipped at the required level. It costs at least $349 that way.

Wii

some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.[/quote]

Most bundles are more expensive. What I've read is that the lower level of the machine isn't for serious gamers.

A three core PPC which is special to the 360, and modified as well is not a generic chip, and cost a good deal of development time, though not as much as the more sophisticated Cell.

Quote:
They made a decision to favor controls over performance and it works in certain situations. That method means that interactivity is key to the gameplay. The performance of the other consoles means that developers don't have to worry so much about game scale and can focus on the story. Both methods have advantages.

It seems clear that Apple prefer the Nintendo route in their products. Less features, less power, more compact, higher premium for the spec, family oriented, intuitive controls. Again, this works for certain situations but not all of them.

Some people like the Wii/iMac, others prefer the XBox/xMac.

Whether the Apple TV needs that kind of control, I don't know. I don't think it will really add anything to it. The Wii makes the controller the core of the gameplay, Apple TV is for media, which does not need a 3D controller.

I still think that rather than adding stuff to a bad product, they need to get rid of it and just turn ipods into Apple TVs using a dock. An ipod classic with a bigger HD than ATV is cheaper. Have a dock where you can sit an ipod on it and watch the movies or listen to the music and then you can take it to work with you without having to do extra syncing.

It's all a matter of personal preferences. Right now, it seems that the choices, and compromises, Nintendo made, were the better ones, as can be seen by the sales figures.

That may change in the future, as prices drop across the board, and more games come out for the PS3.
post #60 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not when it's equipped at the required level. It costs at least $349 that way.

Wii

some bundles are cheaper. AFAIK, the 360 has no development issues. It uses a generic 3 core processor.

Most bundles are more expensive. What I've read is that the lower level of the machine isn't for serious gamers.

The Premium XBox package, which is the "everything" package, is currently on par with a Wii+basic accessories in most markets. On the site you guys are linking for some reason, the XBox is £200, Wii £180 (without component cable or memory card, which I understand matters much more for the Wii than a HD-based system). So price is, for all practical purposes, out of the equation between the two.
post #61 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

The Premium XBox package, which is the "everything" package, is currently on par with a Wii+basic accessories in most markets. On the site you guys are linking for some reason, the XBox is £200, Wii £180 (without component cable or memory card, which I understand matters much more for the Wii than a HD-based system). So price is, for all practical purposes, out of the equation between the two.

I don't know why you are making that comparison. The XBox Elite costs $449.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....ci_sku=8301492

The
post #62 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's just not your cup of tea.

Yes I agree entirely, same deal with an Apple TV - I don't think I'll own one of those either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Not when it's equipped at the required level. It costs at least $349 that way.

As mentioned above, that was the premium bundle, which is largely on par with the Wii. The Core/arcade models are even cheaper but don't have a hard drive. The elite model just has a bigger hard drive and some other extra stuff. Most people go for the premium model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Most bundles are more expensive.

They are still very comparable though. A Wii with Mario at £240 vs an XBox with GTA4 at £270 in my books is on the same price point because GTA4 for obvious reasons is more expensive than a Mario game.

Comparing consoles alone, you can get the Wii on its own for £179 and an XBox 360 Premium for £199 - Amazon have them at £179 and £189 respectively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

A three core PPC which is special to the 360, and modified as well is not a generic chip, and cost a good deal of development time, though not as much as the more sophisticated Cell.

Sure they're not standard chips but don't all consoles use custom chips? Apple's top end Mac Pro and iMac use custom chips but they are no more difficult to develop for.

The only development issue they should have is making parallel code to take advantage of the multiple cores but this is fairly easy to do these days with just 3 cores. The 7 or so non-generic cores in the Cell are nowhere near as easy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's all a matter of personal preferences. Right now, it seems that the choices, and compromises, Nintendo made, were the better ones, as can be seen by the sales figures.

I don't agree that there is a right and wrong. People say the same about apple and their design decisions. Ok great they may be making money but they also have to think about their reputation among consumers as it has a long term impact on the company.

Sales figures show that again in Western countries, the 360 is almost on a par with the Wii anyway ( http://www.vgchartz.com/ ). It's only in Asia where the Wii sales greatly outnumber it.

To say that Nintendo made the better choices because they sell more isn't quite accurate because they are going after a different market from XBox 360 and PS3 owners (add those two consoles together and you see that more gamers are into next-gen gaming). If we were all coerced into Nintendo's model, we simply wouldn't have games like GTA4 at the level it is at and from the 5 or so people I know who have it, they say it's one of the best games they've ever played.

Sales figures also don't take account of games sales, which for loss-leading next-gen consoles is where they eventually make up their money.

I think we're getting away from where this leaves the ATV though. Clearly the Nintendo with the motion controller sells but is it going to be worthwhile to add it to what is essentially a movie box?

No doubt since Apple have movie downloads, they could do a game download service as they will be about the same size. But that ATV already gets incredibly hot as it is so how is it going to handle gaming?

Plus there will be no chance for preowned sales in that distribution model, which is really the only reason I would ever do any gaming at all. I still think that Apple should stop distributing custom boxes for the TV and just license their software for addons to consoles or do the ipod thing.

All that's needed is a hard drive and the consoles all have USB ports, then wifi, which they all have too - though not 802.11n but does anyone have a fully 802.11n network yet? Very few I'd imagine.

Bus powered USB drive = $99 + ATV software. I'm sure they could manage to make the bundle $99 total and this would be far more appealing to people than buying a dedicated ATV box. Plus there are already 50 million+ people who own consoles. Has the ATV even passed 1 million sales yet? At the end of the day, Apple make money on content and also mindshare from their position in digital downloads. Flops like ATV can only do them harm but bundles imply partnerships and appealing to a wider market and it gives them more respect.
post #63 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I don't know why you are making that comparison. The XBox Elite costs $449.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....ci_sku=8301492

The

I think the real question is, why are you making that comparison? You are maybe confusing the Premium with the Arcade, which lacks a HD and comes with a wired controller only, but the Premium is the "real deal" and gives you the exact same gaming experience the Elite will. With the differences amounting to a larger HD and a HDMI cord included in package, the Elite is really just for bragging rights and/or for media center functionality, which Wii doesn't even try to compete in.
post #64 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Y


They are still very comparable though. A Wii with Mario at £240 vs an XBox with GTA4 at £270 in my books is on the same price point because GTA4 for obvious reasons is more expensive than a Mario game.

Comparing consoles alone, you can get the Wii on its own for £179 and an XBox 360 Premium for £199 - Amazon have them at £179 and £189 respectively.

They aren't comparable because you can't get the Wii in better packages. despite the thought that the 360 elite is only just a bigger HDD, many gamers have been demanding a bigger HDD. At least it's available. The Wii tops out at the low end in comparison to both the 360 and PS3. The game bundles are unimportant, because there's no reason to think that many people will want those bundles anyway. No more so than you think people will want the higher end 360 and PS3 models, bundles, or not.

Both the 360 and PS3 do many things the Wii does not, and buyers want to do those things. Hence the better models.

Quote:
Sure they're not standard chips but don't all consoles use custom chips? Apple's top end Mac Pro and iMac use custom chips but they are no more difficult to develop for.

The only development issue they should have is making parallel code to take advantage of the multiple cores but this is fairly easy to do these days with just 3 cores. The 7 or so non-generic cores in the Cell are nowhere near as easy.

I was talking about developing the special 3 core PPC chip. That wasn't just something IBM whipped up in an afternoon. That was a lot of work. Making a game run in 3 core parallism is also difficult. You should have read all the comments game developers have made over the past two or three years about how difficult it was making games use even two cores, which is why very few PC games do that yet.

Making them work effectively on three is even more difficult.

You are showing a lack of knowledge about parallel processing and programming if you think this is anywhere near being easy.

Read up on this.

The Cell is even worse, with its 7 SPUs and ring memory model.

There's essentially nothing custom about the Wiis PPC chip.

Apple's chips have nothing to do with this question at all, because their "customization" is merely Intel coming out with faster versions for Apple a couple of months, or so, before they are released to everyone else.

Quote:
I don't agree that there is a right and wrong. People say the same about apple and their design decisions. Ok great they may be making money but they also have to think about their reputation among consumers as it has a long term impact on the company.

You're getting off track here. This has nothing to do with Apple's computers, or their design decisions.

Quote:
Sales figures show that again in Western countries, the 360 is almost on a par with the Wii anyway ( http://www.vgchartz.com/ ). It's only in Asia where the Wii sales greatly outnumber it.

I don't see how you come to that conclusion. The US is the gorilla in this market, and it isn't even close here, OR in Asia. While the PS3 is close in the other markets, the 360 trails fairly well there also. Here is the page:

http://www.vgchartz.com/

Quote:
To say that Nintendo made the better choices because they sell more isn't quite accurate because they are going after a different market from XBox 360 and PS3 owners (add those two consoles together and you see that more gamers are into next-gen gaming). If we were all coerced into Nintendo's model, we simply wouldn't have games like GTA4 at the level it is at and from the 5 or so people I know who have it, they say it's one of the best games they've ever played.

Sales figures also don't take account of games sales, which for loss-leading next-gen consoles is where they eventually make up their money.

These are game machines, essentially expensive toys. The proper decision is the one that helps sell the most toys, just like any other toy. It's interesting to note that other than for Grand Theft Auto, all the other top games for the consoles are for the Wii.

It's also interesting to note that Nintendo is the only company here that has been making good profits on both console sales and game sales, for a total profit on both.

While Sony, last quarter, announced that they were breaking even for their entertainment division, and would again make a profit on it this quarter, as they did through almost every year, except one, for both the PS1 and 2s life, which, by the way, continues to sell very well, often outselling both the PS3 AND the 360, MS is still in trouble.

While THEY have announced they would make a profit on their entertainment division for the FIRST time EVER since coming out with the first XBox (and this includes all money made from game sales and licensing), it isn't actually true. They're conveniently omitting the $1,3 billion write down they had to make for warrantee repair of the units that broke from the serious engineering flaw that was missed due to their rush to get this to market in the run to beat Sony. Estimates are that MS will eventually need to write down much more, as more consoles are expected to break in the future.

Quote:
I think we're getting away from where this leaves the ATV though. Clearly the Nintendo with the motion controller sells but is it going to be worthwhile to add it to what is essentially a movie box?

As the ATv is now, that's a tough question. But there are two considerations to make here.

The first is that the ATc is a computer in its own right. not that powerful, but as has been shown by those hackers that have done it, a credible one. It also includes OS X, as does the phone. There is little the iPhone can do that the ATv can't do as well, and with its HDD, can possibly do better. As you know, the iPhone is already considered to be a pretty good game platform. I assume you've seen the demo's of Mario and Life.

The second is that as this isn't a game console, there is no reason to think that Apple will keep the hardware static. Apple can very easily produce a ver. 2 with a stronger cpu, and even a gpu that enhances its game playing power.

So a game controller would fit very well.

Quote:
No doubt since Apple have movie downloads, they could do a game download service as they will be about the same size. But that ATV already gets incredibly hot as it is so how is it going to handle gaming?

Mine gets hot, but no hotter than my power amp does, and that's used every day, and never turned off. Ny SA cable box is always very hot as well. These are designed to run hot. I can only imagine that the ATv is designed that way as well. It doesn't really mean anything.

Quote:
Plus there will be no chance for preowned sales in that distribution model, which is really the only reason I would ever do any gaming at all. I still think that Apple should stop distributing custom boxes for the TV and just license their software for addons to consoles or do the ipod thing.

We don't know anything about what Apple plans here, so we can't talk about preowned games, though that doesn't seem to be much of an issue to most people. I don't agree with your premise though. I see no reason why Apple shouldn't have its own platform. As a dual purpose machine, it has a very good chance.

Quote:
All that's needed is a hard drive and the consoles all have USB ports, then wifi, which they all have too - though not 802.11n but does anyone have a fully 802.11n network yet? Very few I'd imagine.

I don't even like WiFi, though the two iMacs I just ordered for my family have it, and when I get my Mac Pro later this year, it'll have it as well.

But, you are making the mistake many people make. You are thinking of NOW. That's a major error. You must think of the future. In a few years, most will have WiFi n, or even better. It takes time before something new works its way through the system. Whatever Apple does, they are aware of that. It's why, while some of their initiatives have seemingly gotten off to a rocky start, in the end they have prevailed, as everyone else has followed.

Quote:
Bus powered USB drive = $99 + ATV software. I'm sure they could manage to make the bundle $99 total and this would be far more appealing to people than buying a dedicated ATV box. Plus there are already 50 million+ people who own consoles. Has the ATV even passed 1 million sales yet? At the end of the day, Apple make money on content and also mindshare from their position in digital downloads. Flops like ATV can only do them harm but bundles imply partnerships and appealing to a wider market and it gives them more respect.

I don't get this last thing about the drive.

But it's thought that Apple passed the one million mark at the end of last year. As more movies come aboard, as is happening now, and as Apple opens up how you can obtain these movies, as they are doing now, the sales will continue to rise.

If Apple also can morph this into a credible game platform, as I feel sure they can do, then sales will rise even faster.
post #65 of 69
Its called a Logitec Airmouse and I have one running on my MacMiniTV for under $200. A MacMiniTV $200 more than an AppleTV and more configurable.
post #66 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyn Ford View Post

Its called a Logitec Airmouse and I have one running on my MacMiniTV for under $200. A MacMiniTV $200 more than an AppleTV and more configurable.

The AppleTV is $230. A Mac Mini + your mouse would be $730. That is a $500 difference.
post #67 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martyn Ford View Post

Its called a Logitec Airmouse and I have one running on my MacMiniTV for under $200. A MacMiniTV $200 more than an AppleTV and more configurable.

There's another company doing it as well. I saw it at the Entertainment Expo here in NYC three years ago, but I don't remember the name.

Nintendo's is more sophisticated than either of those.
post #68 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There's another company doing it as well. I saw it at the Entertainment Expo here in NYC three years ago, but I don't remember the name.

Nintendo's is more sophisticated than either of those.

Might that be Gyration's Gyromouse?
post #69 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Might that be Gyration's Gyromouse?

That's it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple developing 3D gaming controller for Apple TV