Apple tv app store games.

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
SOLUTION:







Apple should make a hardware controller, with physical buttons, to work with games on the Apple TV App Store - when they release it. I don't like the idea of a touch-screen controller to work games in the TV. To be seamless it needs to be physical as you'll be staring at the TV. For a remote, touchscreen is fine, for games on the TV a touch-screen handheld makes very little sense.



Do I expect Apple to do this? No.



Should they? Absolutely.



UPDATE: I'm not looking for Google TV, Google's approach sucks. I think the Apple TV Remote is perfect. I'm talking about an additional controller from Apple (a hardware product) specifically designed for games. For people who want to game on the Apple TV, they would buy this additional product, and because it would be custom designed with games in mind they would get the optimum experience. That's what I'm talking about.



This idea Google has of making your TV a "computer" is the stupidest Bill-Gates-style-idea ever. It's not that I think it won't work, I know it won't work. Nobody practical wants a GIANT computer in their living room. People want things to be less complex, not more complex.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 8
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,209moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Apple should make a hardware controller, with physical buttons, to work with games on the Apple TV App Store - when they release it.



    I think Google is the company you're after:







    That's the Sony remote for Google TV.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    I don't like the idea of a touch-screen controller to work games in the TV.



    Quite right but they could have a touch device like the Magic trackpad that maps your touch to areas of the screen with a built-in accelerometer and gyroscope.



    The device orientation eliminates the right analogue stick. Touching the left side of the device eliminates the left one as you swipe for directions. Doing the same with the right side eliminates the d-pad or some combination of these.



    This leaves 10 buttons and two analog triggers.



    You have gestures to use for start and select e.g 3-finger swipe up or down. Two finger swipes left, right, up and down cover 4 buttons and because it's touch, you can do a lot of contextual controls.



    I'm thinking about a metal bar that has a 16:9 aspect and slightly shorter than the length of a hand, possibly with two slight ridges dividing the bar into 3 parts along the longest side. It would map your touch to the screen area and it allows you to browse the web.



    Turn on the TV, pick up the Magic remote and hold it sideways. You get your app icons and one is selected. You move your finger over the surface to move the selection and then tap to open. You 2-finger swipe to move rows of icons. You open a web browser and the URL bar is selected with a big keyboard on the TV. You swipe across the bar to select a key and then tap to select or the selection can be done using the accelerometer and tap to select. A virtual keyboard makes it easier for multiple languages.



    Hit virtual return key and it loads the page. You then use two fingers to scroll down and pinch zoom. Sliding the finger over the bar or again the accelerometer movement highlights links and you tap to select. To go back to the url bar, 3-finger swipe up. Two-finger left/right is forward/back.



    As soon as you design buttons on a remote, you decide on their function when you build them so it constrains the device. TV remotes are horrendous devices with so many buttons for any and every action because they simply don't think about context. When you navigate a menu system, you don't need gaming buttons or media buttons, you just need directions and select or cancel. The 3-pad does this as you use the left section for movement and middle or right for select/cancel. When you play media, you usually just need play/pause, fast forward, rewind etc and this can be done with intuitive gestures. Much easier than using a gaming remote or putting down the gamepad and using a remote.



    I was a bit surprised Apple went with the standard remote this time round but I guess they were aiming for cheap. If they managed to make a Magic remote for $50 and bring the whole package in at $149, it would have added a compelling interaction element to the device. Adding a browser and letting people check stuff from the sofa would have been a great feature. Sure the users might not be typing a lot but they could buy stuff online without needing a computer. There are very few devices for $149 that will let you do that. Of course you need to make sure the OS can't be rooted by visiting a website otherwise a restore could be tricky.



    But just being able to browse IMDB for reviews or check the latest tech news blog for updates while the adverts are on would have been so cool. Naturally there's room for this in the next model but they should have done it now to build up a userbase volume and when they get volume, they get leverage with content providers so then you get rentals.
  • Reply 2 of 8
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    I think Google is the company you're after:







    No. The Apple TV Remote is not the problem. The thing I'm talking about - if you bothered to read my post properly - is Apple offering a hardware game controller similar to the PS3 controller for games on the App Store. But keeping the remote the same for actually controlling the device.



    NOT that bastardized-remote, above. But two remotes. One specifically designed just for games.
  • Reply 3 of 8
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,209moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    if you bothered to read my post properly



    Similarly, what I'm suggesting is that the use of buttons at the design stage limits the use of the device so the only solution is more buttons, in your case multiple controlling devices. A device like the following (the 3 sections would be square):







    could do everything you need and more in a single device. Flat Lithium Ion battery with a USB charging plug. All context-sensitive controls are done by mapping the surface to the screen content and it could allow fast text entry.



    If you imagine an on-screen keyboard, it would be split into 3 parts. with 9 letters/keys in 3x3 blocks. It doesn't have to be qwerty, it could be alphabetised. When you touch the left-most block, you are in that group of 9 keys and you just swipe in the direction of the key to select it so swipe to the top left in section 1 is 'a'. Tapping picks the center key.



    Like I say, it functions as a media remote, a keyboard, a games controller, a remote to control an on-screen browser with pinch-zoom, scroll etc. Much better than a clunky old playstation controller that only does games.
  • Reply 4 of 8
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Similarly, what I'm suggesting is that the use of buttons at the design stage limits the use of the device so the only solution is more buttons, in your case multiple controlling devices. A device like the following (the 3 sections would be square):







    could do everything you need and more in a single device. Flat Lithium Ion battery with a USB charging plug. All context-sensitive controls are done by mapping the surface to the screen content and it could allow fast text entry.



    If you imagine an on-screen keyboard, it would be split into 3 parts. with 9 letters/keys in 3x3 blocks. It doesn't have to be qwerty, it could be alphabetised. When you touch the left-most block, you are in that group of 9 keys and you just swipe in the direction of the key to select it so swipe to the top left in section 1 is 'a'. Tapping picks the center key.



    Like I say, it functions as a media remote, a keyboard, a games controller, a remote to control an on-screen browser with pinch-zoom, scroll etc. Much better than a clunky old playstation controller that only does games.



    Yes, but I think the ideal solution is to keep the gaming controller separate from the regular input remote. That thing you have here looks too complex even for geeks, never mind a regular-Joe. "Complex" meaning not mind-numbingly obvious, which is what it has to be.



    The existing Apple TV Remote works perfectly, but not for games. I say keep the remote as is, but add a second device people can buy if they want to play games. Make it along the lines of a PS3 controller of sorts. Apple TV Remote stays as is. This additional device, let's call is the Apple Game Controller.



    The idea of playing games on an iPad or iPhone and beaming them to an Apple TV doesn't make any sense, and the idea using your iPad, iPod touch or iPhone as a touch-screen games controller for games on the Apple TV also sounds lame. That's the whole reason for a custom hardware Apple TV Game Controller. Sold separately. Heck, the thing could come with a mini-USB stick that you plug in the back of the Apple TV and that's what's used to store the games, plugging it in makes a "games" menu item appear on the Apple TV, and you can unplug it and bring it around to your friends house to play a new game on his system or swap games. That's what I'm talking about. That's new, different and interesting, and it requires IMO a physical games controller.



    The whole thing at first sounds more complex, but it's not. If you're going to play a game you get out the Game Controller. If you're going to watch videos you don't. That keeps the regular remote as simple as it needs to be, and it needs to be. And it gives gamers of big screen games what the need most of all, a custom controller specifically for games, with physical buttons.



    iPad, iPod touch and iPhone games are a different thing. They are mobile games, and they work that way as such. Games on the TV are not mobile games, it's a different market. It's just different and requires a different approach. Hence the physical controller.
  • Reply 5 of 8
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,209moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    The existing Apple TV Remote works perfectly, but not for games.



    The current remote does work fine for some things but it can't be extended to work with a browser if they decide to add that feature nor can the games controller. You can't input text easily with either so you need a wireless keyboard. That's 3 sets of batteries to replace. The above 3-pad could use inductive charging and you just sit it on top of the ATV at night.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    The idea of playing games on an iPad or iPhone and beaming them to an Apple TV doesn't make any sense, and the idea using your iPad, iPod touch or iPhone as a touch-screen games controller for games on the Apple TV also sounds lame.



    I pretty much agree with that but I reckon it could be done quite well.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    The whole thing at first sounds more complex, but it's not. If you're going to play a game you get out the Apple Game Controller, or 2. If you're going to watch videos you don't.



    But when you switch games or jump out of a game for a second to catch a video game walkthrough on Youtube what do you do? You pause the game, put the controller down, get the remote, navigate to the youtube channel, play it, pause it, put the remote down and pick up the games controller. With the touch pad you don't put it down.



    The obvious advantage to the standard controller is cost of course, which is better for multi-player. You can't have £60 game controllers but £30 is reasonable and in the region of a wireless XBox controller.
  • Reply 6 of 8
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    The current remote does work fine for some things but it can't be extended to work with a browser if they decide to add that feature.



    Nobody wants a browser on their TV.
  • Reply 7 of 8
    irelandireland Posts: 17,547member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    But when you switch games or jump out of a game for a second to catch a video game walkthrough on Youtube what do you do? You pause the game, put the controller down, get the remote, navigate to the youtube channel, play it, pause it, put the remote down and pick up the games controller.



    Like the PS3, you can use the game controller to control the Apple TV. You just can't play games with the standard Remote, which is how it should be. Games are an addition and the Games Controller should be too.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    You can't have £60 game controllers but £30 is reasonable and in the region of a wireless XBox controller.



    Exactly. Keep the Apple TV and it's simple remote simple. Treat games as something else and release a custom hardware product that provides the perfect custom experience for that.
  • Reply 8 of 8
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Nobody wants a browser on their TV.



    If it's a browser with a user agent reports it as being regular old computer Safari, I do. Because then I can watch Hulu on my TV without jumping through any hoops.
Sign In or Register to comment.