That?s big for an iOS game. I made a comment earlier in this thread about a way this could be handled with a push of simple game files if we assume that an iOS-based iDevice would be required for this setup.. but there might be another way, even if they do increase the amount of storage.
Since the AppleTV is stationary and likely tied to a home network where there is some Mac or PC with an iTunes account that is linked to the AppleTV, it?s possible it could what I stated before but rotate the needed apps from the iTunes account as needed. While not ideal if you do have to wait for a game to load into the AppleTV and load, it is a solution that may be faster than what I?ve experienced loading optical discs into game consoles. Still, that would only happen if you run out of space and need to reload the game files.
Again, not ideal, but doable.
PS: Is it possible that 8GB flash memory was simply the most economical option for the AppleTV or was there a distinct reason for adding that much NAND just to run the OS and stream video?
They need to solve this problem one way or the other. Most consoles have a drive which has a Blu ray or DVD where the readonly game data is stored and get away with space constraints.
A $5 game is only a gimmick if you sell 10,000 copies as it restricts the development budget that can be assigned.
If on the other hand you sell 100,000,000 copies of a game at $5 then with half a billion at your disposal will make for some pretty huge development scope.
Apple talked about 150m iOS devices last year. 300m by 2013 is not unreasonable. Let us assume 2 more doublings of CPU performance, 1gig of system ram and 2 lots of say 4x GPU (as opposed to 9x) top it off with Wireless HD (not wifi) / thunderbolt and you have a formidable (and technically plausible) scenario, add in wireless power so you can go forever in your lounge room (maybe by 2013)
You are making some wild assumptions. The biggest being that all owners of iOS devices purchase games
EDIT: Don't forget, the PS3 is running the same hardware for full life of the console, the same with the X-Box 360 and Wii etc, a game from the release date will play on the final model, just like a game released for a PS2 today will play on a 10 year old one model. The iOS devices change each year, and they developers will target the newer ones, so you can't compare sales numbers the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
$5 does not make a gimmick. I have seen plenty $100 gimmicks and as for franchises like GT, I've seen the same game sold at $100 with a new paint job multiple times. It is neither clever nor enduring in the desire to keep paying.
Can you list the games please, and the currency you are referring to?
iPad 2 - console quality gaming where the games sell for under $10
Console games - console quality gaming the games sell for $30+
I don't own an iPad so you will have to answer this for me, are the $10 games really as long, and as complex, and as higher quality as the console games?
That demo of Real Racing 2 looks very nice for a portable game, but it doesn't look anywhere as nice as GT 5.
And the likes of "Contract Killer", is it to the same level as Call of Duty?
These games look more like the level of the PSN minis that the LBP, Drakes Fortune etc type games.
But if that is what people want, that is what people will buy, I just can't see how they can call it console quality yet.
iPad 2 - console quality gaming where the games sell for under $10
Console games - console quality gaming the games sell for $30+
It doesn't take long for the iPad 2 to be cheaper. Buy about 10 games for each and you're already ahead with the iPad.
Plus you can take the iPad with you anywhere while a console system requires a TV to use.
Plus you can use the iPad for a million other things.
Certainly Nintendo has a valuable asset with their Mario franchise, but don't think independent console developers owned by the console makers aren't going to bring out high quality titles for the iPad 2. There are simply too many of them being sold to be ignored. There are roughly 50 million xbox 360s, 50 million PS3s and 80 million Wi's. These are consoles that have been on the market for close to 5 years. Some projections have Apple selling close to 50 million iPads this year, which would put them approaching 200 million iOS devices sold by the end of the year, if not more.
Also, I'm not sure why you think titles like Angry Birds should be dismissed. This is a huge hit with Nindendo's target casual gamers market. Nintendo's profits dropped by half last year. iOS devices are most certainly a major factor in that. The problems Nintendo faces competing are only going to get worse going forward.
Also, some stats on Angry Birds
One other thing to consider in the price of a game for an iPad vs for a console or PGP:
With the iPad you buy the game once and everyone in the family can concurrently play that game on their iPad -- wherever they are.
In our household, each of the 3 kids and 2 adults has their own iPad. Each iPad has a copy of most apps.
So, we buy MeGameX for, say, $10 -- and, concurrently:
-- sis is playing MeGameX while staying overnight at a friend's house
-- bro #1 is playing MeGameX sitting on the front porch with a neighbor
-- Mom is playing MeGameX while waiting at the carwash
-- grandpa is playing MeGameX parked on the couch in between NCAA games
This simple fact changes the entire equation -- we can afford to buy more games, better [more expensive] games, and each/any is always available to anyone/anytime/wherever.
I don't own an iPad so you will have to answer this for me, are the $10 games really as long, and as complex, and as higher quality as the console games?
That demo of Real Racing 2 looks very nice for a portable game, but it doesn't look anywhere as nice as GT 5.
Of course not. I beat real racing 2 in two hours, you can imagine it took quite a lot doing the same for Forza3 or GT5 (not even finished it yet).
Real Racing 2 looks very nice indeed, for casual gamers, but you are correct, it just far from the look of GT5 or Shift 2.
-- Mom is playing MeGameX while waiting at the carwash
-- grandpa is playing MeGameX parked on the couch in between NCAA games
This simple fact changes the entire equation -- we can afford to buy more games, better [more expensive] games, and each/any is always available to anyone/anytime/wherever.
How is this any different than purchasing a game from PSN? I can purchase the game once and download it multiple times on my various PSPs, or PS3s
How do you know that? Is it really inconceivable that people have purchased a console because there wasn't anything else even approaching that for use on a TV, but given the choice between a dedicated console and an iPad they might choose the iPad as their gaming device, once those games hit a certain threshold of sophistication?
I don't really know where I weigh in on this issue, but for me the question is whether hand held gaming encroaches on the console market. No, it doesn't. So why should the ipad? No one in their right mind is going to play Halo Multiplayer on an ipad, even if it had the capability - touch screen controls get in the way, and anyone using one would get trounced, not to mention...who enjoys playing these kinds of games on a smaller screen? The answer is "some people," and they're the exact same ones who buy the PSP and Nintendo DS.
I'm not opposed to the idea that ipad could encroach...sales will be sales, and maybe there will be a shift to mobile gaming, inspired by the multiple capabilities of the ipad. But I'm not convinced of that happening. There are some pretty impressive shooters available on the PSP, as well as every other type of game...why are these not driving down sales of Black Ops, Reach, etc? Will the market for iPad games expand? Probably, but has the interest in hardcore console games ever been bigger than it is now? (I don't know the numbers, so that is more than a rhetorical question...maybe interest is lagging, but it doesn't seem like it...someone more knowledgeable can inform me). I don't see the iPad as being anything more than an alternative to hand held gaming, but even then I don't see it taking over - touch screens make lousy controls for complex games in the exact same way that they make lousy keyboards: I write 90 wpm...can I come anywhere close to that on a touchscreen? Not in a million years. In my book, physical controls are more advanced than touchscreen, despite touchscreen being extremely popular.
Again, the market can easily correct me on this in the future (or even now), but my impression is that iPad is for casual gamers. The only people I know who are regular gamers on an iPad are train riders, children, and stay at home moms (I have great respect for the latter, so don't think of that as diminutive). Maybe the iPad will replace dedicated handhelds, but in my very frank opinion I think that is about as likely as touchscreen keyboards replacing physical keyboards. You'd have to be stoned out of your mind to want to write a term paper on a touchscreen, or process legal work, or write a novel, or hold the average corporate cubicle job. The touchscreen is going to limit the type of games that come out. Seriously, how can "Infinite Blade" (a game that bored me to no end), compete with more robust fighter and adventure games on a dedicated handheld? What I see is a simple progression. Console games will be cutting edge, dedicated hand helds will be the portable version of the previous one or two generation consoles, and touchscreen games will be limited to games whose mechanics are simple enough to be controlled with a touch screen. I think there is going to be a market for all three. But iPad encroaching on consoles? I seriously doubt it. I understand trends change and new generations approach things in different ways, but there is something raw and fundamental about console games - they offer increasingly realistic experiences, with physical controllers that allow for that complexity.
I would suggest you read the post I was replying to.
But alright, guys. Okay. The iPad is going to replace consoles. Microsoft won?t bother pursuing the one profitable venture they didn?t build via monopoly. Sony will just bow out of a market that arguably sustained their company for nearly a decade. Nintendo will go back to making playing cards. Their lunch has already been eaten by Apple, they just don?t know it yet.
Sheesh.
There?s a difference between defending a product you like and understanding its limitations. The iPad is not a console replacement.
I really wish people would stop making blanket statements and pretending that the world is black and white.
SOME people will use an iOS device instead of a game. My daughter, for example, stopped using her Wii when she got her iPod Touch.
SOME people will continue to use consoles.
SOME people will only play games on an SLI super-macho PC.
There is no single type of user. The simple question is whether each product has a niche - and whether SOME people are migrating from one device to another. The facts are very, very simple:
1. The iPad and other iOS devices have been very successful
2. Other devices are also very successful (Kinect/XBox, Wii, PS3, etc).
3. Some people use both types of devices
4. Some people use only one of the devices
5. Some people have switched from consoles to playing games on their iOS device.
No one knows how many people there are in #5. My daughter is one and I know a few other people who have done it. If the iPad's capabilities are increasing faster than the consoles (thereby reducing the gap between them), then that number is likely to grow. If the consoles are improving faster than the iPad, then the number of people in #5 will decrease.
In the past year, iOS devices have improved dramatically (addition of large screen iPad, big performance gains, thousands of new games) while consoles have not (with the exception of the addition of Kinect). Heck, how long has Wii been sold in its current configuration? iOS devices ARE reducing the gap.
No one is saying that iOS devices will ever catch up to a console in raw performance. And no one is saying that EVERYONE will switch - or even that a dominant percentage of users will switch. But clearly, it's almost a tautology to say that as iOS devices reduce the gap between themselves and console devices that some people will switch to using iOS devices at least some of the time. Does it really matter if that's 1% of console users or 20%?
Other than the fact that Apple-bashers will argue against ANYTHING, there's really nothing to discuss. The facts are simple.
How is this any different than purchasing a game from PSN? I can purchase the game once and download it multiple times on my various PSPs, or PS3s
I am/was unaware of PSN. When did PSN become available?
We have a Wii, and its predecessor. and have gone through at least 4 of their portables. Each of these requires a disc or a cartridge to be installed in the device to play the game -- it cannot be installed in another device at the same time.
In 2008, when we started to replace our gen 1 iPhones (3), we gave the kids the choice, for example:
free iPhone and $100 worth of games vs $140 Nintendo PGP and $60 worth of games (2 games)
They all chose the iPhone, and we have never looked back.
AFAIK, none of the popular portable games of that era were downloadable to multiple devices.
Anecdotally, about once every 2-3 weeks, the kids will want to play on the Wii -- with, maybe, an old favorite or a new game from RedBox.
The kids take their iPads to friends' homes, who have various consoles and portables -- a few iPhones, but no iPads, yet! So they are exposed to what's "out there" for their contemporaries. They tell me that the iPads are quite a hit -- maybe, just the newness/novelty.
The kids are on their iPads several hours a day -- and usually browse the app store and ask for 1 or 2 new apps each, per day/
Mom and I are trying to determine how to handle this -- we have joint family reading sessions 2-3 times a week (now using the iPads)
We are thinking that:
1) each week, we, the family (Mom or me) can buy 1 iBook, 1 game and 1 educational app, and each of the 3 kids will take turns choosing.
2) anyone can buy a (mom-approved) app with their own money
3) any one can request a (mom-approved) free app
4) we will handle all download and syncs each evening
5) Mom or me will periodically see an app that's useful to all, e.g. Star walk, Pages, 24/7 Spanish, etc. -- and buy it. I bought SynchPad, yesterday, for $10.
Finally, because the iPad can be used for so many other things, the cost is easily justified -- the games are just a bonus.
The new iPad 2 is console class. Easily looks Wii or PS2 quality or better to me. Maybe more. Whether the iPad 2 has PS3 quality graphics is no more an argument than comparing a Wii's graphics to the PS3.
It's gpu power easily hangs with a PS2 minimum. And is no doubt looking down it's sights to PS3/360 quality graphics with it's next iteration with a retina display probably.
If you look at the fill rates of various GPUs, it gives a clearer picture of where mobile graphics are:
The Wii matches the iPad 2 and original XBox fill rate so those 3 would be around the same area. The NGP, I based on being double the iPad 2 GPU as it has 4 cores of the same GPU vs 2, although it might be higher clocked.
The NGP was demoed running PS3 games at 20FPS @ 960x544 vs 60FPS @ 1920x1080 for the same games on the PS3. Immediately, that suggests the NGP is 6x slower than a PS3 and matches the fill rate ratio.
When it comes to quality though, it's possible to make a game look just as good on lower spec hardware, especially on a smaller screen. Turn down/off the AA, texture filtering, resolution etc.
It also depends on how much performance you can actually squeeze out the device. The XBox 360 for example is rated lower than a PS3 but it's easier to develop for and loads of games look better on the 360. Sony said they did this on purpose so that the console had a longer lifespan i.e games improve in quality during the console lifespan the more that devs get better with the tools. I personally think that's not a smart thing to do and obviously hasn't paid off for them.
If Apple doubles the GPU every year, it will reach PS3 quality in about 3 years i.e iPad 5 = PS3. Although Apple notes 9x for iPad 2, it's mostly 2-3x over last year.
The Playstation 4 is rumoured for 2012, which would make sense as the PSP came out 2005 and PS3 2006. NGP would be Christmas 2011 and PS4 sometime 2012, possibly Christmas 2012.
Given the difference in performance, there's a distinct advantage with the bigger consoles and 2011 GPUs can hit 70 billion texels/s+, even up to 100 billion with multi-GPU, which is what the PS4 would aim for and this moves the benchmark out a bit. It would take a further 5 years to catch up to that.
But it comes down profitability not quality. If they make consoles where the games take >3 years to develop and >$100m to make, which has been the case now, they won't make enough money to keep going. they definitely need to make smarter decisions going forward.
Apple has done this - quick game turnaround, every sale is a first-time sale = high profitability. It comes at the expense of some quality but it's a sustainable eco-system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emulator
The XBOX360 is $200, the PS3 (almost always offered with a $50 GC) is $300. So you get both for less than $450.
The 4GB Flash one is, which is a fair point but I excluded that as it misses out functionality. People tend to prefer to get ones with HDDs but yeah, you can still get one for $200. The main point though is the cost of the games, which have to be taken into account.
Think about this for a minute -- If something needs to be done, the most important thing is that it gets done. Doing it right is desirable, but not necessary -- doing it badly is better than not doing it at all.
I was around in 1978 when the Apple ][ came out -- it had the ability to display 40x40 blocks of graphics in 16 colors -- it came with "Breakout" a Pong-like game.
It wasn't as good as a "Pong" machine -- but it was good enough, and cost a lot less.
Two points:
1) Breakout was good enough to approximate Pong.
2) Good enough brought the experience into a new venue -- the home!
Some will argue, but Doing Pong badly on an Apple ][ was one of the seminal influences of what gaming is today.
Monkey Ball on the iPad really sucks -- except compared to not having Monkey Ball on the iPad.
AIR, MonkeyBall was one of the first games shown on the iPhone (late 2007 - early 2008).
Monkey Ball has gotten better and so have the hundreds of thousands of multitouch games that followed.
Also the iPhone hardware has gotten better and proliferated into a family of iDevices.
We are at the very birth of portable/mobile/multiplayer multitouch games... with much to follow.
What will happen when someone releases a killer game that can only be run on an iPad -- with it's portability, touchscreen, cameras, accelerometers, gyroscope, etc.?
If iMovie, GarageBand and some of the other apps are any indication, the iPad has a convergence of capabilities that allow experiences to be done better than any other known way.
What/When will be the first game experience for which people will buy the iPad?
Invent a Leather Band to wrap around the iPad, covering the black bezel... Yep... Fine Leather, that'll get you feeling like your behind the steering wheel of a high performance vehicle!
Apple has the "Smart Cover"... This can be called the "Racing Cover"!
/
/
/
It would have to be not just any fine leather, but soft Corinthian leather!
What will happen when someone releases a killer game that can only be run on an iPad -- with it's portability, touchscreen, cameras, accelerometers, gyroscope, etc.?
many other tablets have these same techs, and as we saw with Angry Birds, once a game saturates the iOs market, they make it work for every other mobile device/os out there...its a numbers game, once they have made some cash from teh original platform, they will go multi platform to make more...given a year or so you will likely see Android->ipad ports as well as iPad -> android
Seems there's always confusion in these gaming topics. I don't think the iPad is infringing on gaming, rather it's bringing it to a bigger market - much like the Wii did. Those who like their proper console games will stick with them and while the hardcore market is "shrinking" it's only doing so because the market is expanding. Not because there are fewer hardcore gamers.
While nothing has quite reached the heights of the PS2 recently, the 2nd and 3rd place consoles have sold substantially more this generation than they did last generation (i.e. around 50million compared to 30million).
Also, there's a place for Apple's iPad in gaming, but it's too early to tell where it is. Touchscreen controls only work well for a few traditional games. I can't see shooting games being playable using an iPad + TV. Also, as stated by a few Apple guys, the iPad is still quite young - I don't think there are many developers who are taking advantage of what it can do especially regarding games. The ones we have now are mostly either ports of traditional games with touch controls slapped on, or unique games which are, unfortunately, quite short lived/ simple. Or Real Racing 2. Overall though, it's not quite matching console grade games yet.
many other tablets have these same techs, and as we saw with Angry Birds, once a game saturates the iOs market, they make it work for every other mobile device/os out there...its a numbers game, once they have made some cash from teh original platform, they will go multi platform to make more...given a year or so you will likely see Android->ipad ports as well as iPad -> android
Even then there are plenty of caveats that make the iPad?s ecosystem better for most developers and consumers, as a whole. We can use Angry Birds as an examples of some of issues of porting to Android and dealing with HW, OS and wonky build issues, not to mention the difficulty of getting direct revenue from Android users for titles. I hope that isn?t the case longterm for Android but so far I see no evidence of that landscape changing.
Seems there's always confusion in these gaming topics. I don't think the iPad is infringing on gaming, rather it's bringing it to a bigger market - much like the Wii did. Those who like their proper console games will stick with them and while the hardcore market is "shrinking" it's only doing so because the market is expanding. Not because there are fewer hardcore gamers.
While nothing has quite reached the heights of the PS2 recently, the 2nd and 3rd place consoles have sold substantially more this generation than they did last generation (i.e. around 50million compared to 30million).
Also, there's a place for Apple's iPad in gaming, but it's too early to tell where it is. Touchscreen controls only work well for a few traditional games. I can't see shooting games being playable using an iPad + TV. Also, as stated by a few Apple guys, the iPad is still quite young - I don't think there are many developers who are taking advantage of what it can do especially regarding games. The ones we have now are mostly either ports of traditional games with touch controls slapped on, or unique games which are, unfortunately, quite short lived/ simple. Or Real Racing 2. Overall though, it's not quite matching console grade games yet.
Speaking of, is there any reason that future game console titles couldn?t be made to work with iOS-based iDevices? Don?t these consoles have a standard Bluetooth stack that is used by the controllers? If so, maybe these $60 titles for consoles will sell or give away App Store apps that extend the game play. This might be easier if AirPlay was licensed or open source, but I can see this as being possible with proprietary in-app services.
many other tablets have these same techs, and as we saw with Angry Birds, once a game saturates the iOs market, they make it work for every other mobile device/os out there...its a numbers game, once they have made some cash from teh original platform, they will go multi platform to make more...given a year or so you will likely see Android->ipad ports as well as iPad -> android
What will happen when someone releases a killer game that can only be run on a Tablet -- with it's portability, touchscreen, cameras, accelerometers, gyroscope, etc.?
...
What/When will be the first game experience for which people will buy a Tablet?
Comments
Everyone repeat after me:
The iPad is not a toy.
The iPad is not a toy.
The iPad is not a toy.
That?s big for an iOS game. I made a comment earlier in this thread about a way this could be handled with a push of simple game files if we assume that an iOS-based iDevice would be required for this setup.. but there might be another way, even if they do increase the amount of storage.
Since the AppleTV is stationary and likely tied to a home network where there is some Mac or PC with an iTunes account that is linked to the AppleTV, it?s possible it could what I stated before but rotate the needed apps from the iTunes account as needed. While not ideal if you do have to wait for a game to load into the AppleTV and load, it is a solution that may be faster than what I?ve experienced loading optical discs into game consoles. Still, that would only happen if you run out of space and need to reload the game files.
Again, not ideal, but doable.
PS: Is it possible that 8GB flash memory was simply the most economical option for the AppleTV or was there a distinct reason for adding that much NAND just to run the OS and stream video?
They need to solve this problem one way or the other. Most consoles have a drive which has a Blu ray or DVD where the readonly game data is stored and get away with space constraints.
A $5 game is only a gimmick if you sell 10,000 copies as it restricts the development budget that can be assigned.
If on the other hand you sell 100,000,000 copies of a game at $5 then with half a billion at your disposal will make for some pretty huge development scope.
Apple talked about 150m iOS devices last year. 300m by 2013 is not unreasonable. Let us assume 2 more doublings of CPU performance, 1gig of system ram and 2 lots of say 4x GPU (as opposed to 9x) top it off with Wireless HD (not wifi) / thunderbolt and you have a formidable (and technically plausible) scenario, add in wireless power so you can go forever in your lounge room (maybe by 2013)
You are making some wild assumptions. The biggest being that all owners of iOS devices purchase games
EDIT: Don't forget, the PS3 is running the same hardware for full life of the console, the same with the X-Box 360 and Wii etc, a game from the release date will play on the final model, just like a game released for a PS2 today will play on a 10 year old one model. The iOS devices change each year, and they developers will target the newer ones, so you can't compare sales numbers the same way.
$5 does not make a gimmick. I have seen plenty $100 gimmicks and as for franchises like GT, I've seen the same game sold at $100 with a new paint job multiple times. It is neither clever nor enduring in the desire to keep paying.
Can you list the games please, and the currency you are referring to?
iPad 2 - console quality gaming where the games sell for under $10
Console games - console quality gaming the games sell for $30+
I don't own an iPad so you will have to answer this for me, are the $10 games really as long, and as complex, and as higher quality as the console games?
That demo of Real Racing 2 looks very nice for a portable game, but it doesn't look anywhere as nice as GT 5.
And the likes of "Contract Killer", is it to the same level as Call of Duty?
These games look more like the level of the PSN minis that the LBP, Drakes Fortune etc type games.
But if that is what people want, that is what people will buy, I just can't see how they can call it console quality yet.
I agree with you about the titles but not so much on the cost. The cheapest, latest model PS3 and 360 are $300 on Amazon.
The XBOX360 is $200, the PS3 (almost always offered with a $50 GC) is $300. So you get both for less than $450.
iPad 2 - console quality gaming where the games sell for under $10
Console games - console quality gaming the games sell for $30+
It doesn't take long for the iPad 2 to be cheaper. Buy about 10 games for each and you're already ahead with the iPad.
Plus you can take the iPad with you anywhere while a console system requires a TV to use.
Plus you can use the iPad for a million other things.
Certainly Nintendo has a valuable asset with their Mario franchise, but don't think independent console developers owned by the console makers aren't going to bring out high quality titles for the iPad 2. There are simply too many of them being sold to be ignored. There are roughly 50 million xbox 360s, 50 million PS3s and 80 million Wi's. These are consoles that have been on the market for close to 5 years. Some projections have Apple selling close to 50 million iPads this year, which would put them approaching 200 million iOS devices sold by the end of the year, if not more.
Also, I'm not sure why you think titles like Angry Birds should be dismissed. This is a huge hit with Nindendo's target casual gamers market. Nintendo's profits dropped by half last year. iOS devices are most certainly a major factor in that. The problems Nintendo faces competing are only going to get worse going forward.
Also, some stats on Angry Birds
One other thing to consider in the price of a game for an iPad vs for a console or PGP:
With the iPad you buy the game once and everyone in the family can concurrently play that game on their iPad -- wherever they are.
In our household, each of the 3 kids and 2 adults has their own iPad. Each iPad has a copy of most apps.
So, we buy MeGameX for, say, $10 -- and, concurrently:
-- sis is playing MeGameX while staying overnight at a friend's house
-- bro #1 is playing MeGameX sitting on the front porch with a neighbor
-- bro #2 is playing MeGameX up in his room
-- Mom is playing MeGameX while waiting at the carwash
-- grandpa is playing MeGameX parked on the couch in between NCAA games
This simple fact changes the entire equation -- we can afford to buy more games, better [more expensive] games, and each/any is always available to anyone/anytime/wherever.
I don't own an iPad so you will have to answer this for me, are the $10 games really as long, and as complex, and as higher quality as the console games?
That demo of Real Racing 2 looks very nice for a portable game, but it doesn't look anywhere as nice as GT 5.
Of course not. I beat real racing 2 in two hours, you can imagine it took quite a lot doing the same for Forza3 or GT5 (not even finished it yet).
Real Racing 2 looks very nice indeed, for casual gamers, but you are correct, it just far from the look of GT5 or Shift 2.
One other thing to consider in the price of a game for an iPad vs for a console or PGP:
With the iPad you buy the game once and everyone in the family can concurrently play that game on their iPad -- wherever they are.
In our household, each of the 3 kids and 2 adults has their own iPad. Each iPad has a copy of most apps.
So, we buy MeGameX for, say, $10 -- and, concurrently:
-- sis is playing MeGameX while staying overnight at a friend's house
-- bro #1 is playing MeGameX sitting on the front porch with a neighbor
-- bro #2 is playing MeGameX up in his room
-- Mom is playing MeGameX while waiting at the carwash
-- grandpa is playing MeGameX parked on the couch in between NCAA games
This simple fact changes the entire equation -- we can afford to buy more games, better [more expensive] games, and each/any is always available to anyone/anytime/wherever.
How is this any different than purchasing a game from PSN? I can purchase the game once and download it multiple times on my various PSPs, or PS3s
How do you know that? Is it really inconceivable that people have purchased a console because there wasn't anything else even approaching that for use on a TV, but given the choice between a dedicated console and an iPad they might choose the iPad as their gaming device, once those games hit a certain threshold of sophistication?
I don't really know where I weigh in on this issue, but for me the question is whether hand held gaming encroaches on the console market. No, it doesn't. So why should the ipad? No one in their right mind is going to play Halo Multiplayer on an ipad, even if it had the capability - touch screen controls get in the way, and anyone using one would get trounced, not to mention...who enjoys playing these kinds of games on a smaller screen? The answer is "some people," and they're the exact same ones who buy the PSP and Nintendo DS.
I'm not opposed to the idea that ipad could encroach...sales will be sales, and maybe there will be a shift to mobile gaming, inspired by the multiple capabilities of the ipad. But I'm not convinced of that happening. There are some pretty impressive shooters available on the PSP, as well as every other type of game...why are these not driving down sales of Black Ops, Reach, etc? Will the market for iPad games expand? Probably, but has the interest in hardcore console games ever been bigger than it is now? (I don't know the numbers, so that is more than a rhetorical question...maybe interest is lagging, but it doesn't seem like it...someone more knowledgeable can inform me). I don't see the iPad as being anything more than an alternative to hand held gaming, but even then I don't see it taking over - touch screens make lousy controls for complex games in the exact same way that they make lousy keyboards: I write 90 wpm...can I come anywhere close to that on a touchscreen? Not in a million years. In my book, physical controls are more advanced than touchscreen, despite touchscreen being extremely popular.
Again, the market can easily correct me on this in the future (or even now), but my impression is that iPad is for casual gamers. The only people I know who are regular gamers on an iPad are train riders, children, and stay at home moms (I have great respect for the latter, so don't think of that as diminutive). Maybe the iPad will replace dedicated handhelds, but in my very frank opinion I think that is about as likely as touchscreen keyboards replacing physical keyboards. You'd have to be stoned out of your mind to want to write a term paper on a touchscreen, or process legal work, or write a novel, or hold the average corporate cubicle job. The touchscreen is going to limit the type of games that come out. Seriously, how can "Infinite Blade" (a game that bored me to no end), compete with more robust fighter and adventure games on a dedicated handheld? What I see is a simple progression. Console games will be cutting edge, dedicated hand helds will be the portable version of the previous one or two generation consoles, and touchscreen games will be limited to games whose mechanics are simple enough to be controlled with a touch screen. I think there is going to be a market for all three. But iPad encroaching on consoles? I seriously doubt it. I understand trends change and new generations approach things in different ways, but there is something raw and fundamental about console games - they offer increasingly realistic experiences, with physical controllers that allow for that complexity.
I would suggest you read the post I was replying to.
But alright, guys. Okay. The iPad is going to replace consoles. Microsoft won?t bother pursuing the one profitable venture they didn?t build via monopoly. Sony will just bow out of a market that arguably sustained their company for nearly a decade. Nintendo will go back to making playing cards. Their lunch has already been eaten by Apple, they just don?t know it yet.
Sheesh.
There?s a difference between defending a product you like and understanding its limitations. The iPad is not a console replacement.
I really wish people would stop making blanket statements and pretending that the world is black and white.
SOME people will use an iOS device instead of a game. My daughter, for example, stopped using her Wii when she got her iPod Touch.
SOME people will continue to use consoles.
SOME people will only play games on an SLI super-macho PC.
There is no single type of user. The simple question is whether each product has a niche - and whether SOME people are migrating from one device to another. The facts are very, very simple:
1. The iPad and other iOS devices have been very successful
2. Other devices are also very successful (Kinect/XBox, Wii, PS3, etc).
3. Some people use both types of devices
4. Some people use only one of the devices
5. Some people have switched from consoles to playing games on their iOS device.
No one knows how many people there are in #5. My daughter is one and I know a few other people who have done it. If the iPad's capabilities are increasing faster than the consoles (thereby reducing the gap between them), then that number is likely to grow. If the consoles are improving faster than the iPad, then the number of people in #5 will decrease.
In the past year, iOS devices have improved dramatically (addition of large screen iPad, big performance gains, thousands of new games) while consoles have not (with the exception of the addition of Kinect). Heck, how long has Wii been sold in its current configuration? iOS devices ARE reducing the gap.
No one is saying that iOS devices will ever catch up to a console in raw performance. And no one is saying that EVERYONE will switch - or even that a dominant percentage of users will switch. But clearly, it's almost a tautology to say that as iOS devices reduce the gap between themselves and console devices that some people will switch to using iOS devices at least some of the time. Does it really matter if that's 1% of console users or 20%?
Other than the fact that Apple-bashers will argue against ANYTHING, there's really nothing to discuss. The facts are simple.
How is this any different than purchasing a game from PSN? I can purchase the game once and download it multiple times on my various PSPs, or PS3s
I am/was unaware of PSN. When did PSN become available?
We have a Wii, and its predecessor. and have gone through at least 4 of their portables. Each of these requires a disc or a cartridge to be installed in the device to play the game -- it cannot be installed in another device at the same time.
In 2008, when we started to replace our gen 1 iPhones (3), we gave the kids the choice, for example:
free iPhone and $100 worth of games vs $140 Nintendo PGP and $60 worth of games (2 games)
They all chose the iPhone, and we have never looked back.
AFAIK, none of the popular portable games of that era were downloadable to multiple devices.
Anecdotally, about once every 2-3 weeks, the kids will want to play on the Wii -- with, maybe, an old favorite or a new game from RedBox.
The kids take their iPads to friends' homes, who have various consoles and portables -- a few iPhones, but no iPads, yet! So they are exposed to what's "out there" for their contemporaries. They tell me that the iPads are quite a hit -- maybe, just the newness/novelty.
The kids are on their iPads several hours a day -- and usually browse the app store and ask for 1 or 2 new apps each, per day/
Mom and I are trying to determine how to handle this -- we have joint family reading sessions 2-3 times a week (now using the iPads)
We are thinking that:
1) each week, we, the family (Mom or me) can buy 1 iBook, 1 game and 1 educational app, and each of the 3 kids will take turns choosing.
2) anyone can buy a (mom-approved) app with their own money
3) any one can request a (mom-approved) free app
4) we will handle all download and syncs each evening
5) Mom or me will periodically see an app that's useful to all, e.g. Star walk, Pages, 24/7 Spanish, etc. -- and buy it. I bought SynchPad, yesterday, for $10.
Finally, because the iPad can be used for so many other things, the cost is easily justified -- the games are just a bonus.
The new iPad 2 is console class. Easily looks Wii or PS2 quality or better to me. Maybe more. Whether the iPad 2 has PS3 quality graphics is no more an argument than comparing a Wii's graphics to the PS3.
It's gpu power easily hangs with a PS2 minimum. And is no doubt looking down it's sights to PS3/360 quality graphics with it's next iteration with a retina display probably.
If you look at the fill rates of various GPUs, it gives a clearer picture of where mobile graphics are:
The Wii matches the iPad 2 and original XBox fill rate so those 3 would be around the same area. The NGP, I based on being double the iPad 2 GPU as it has 4 cores of the same GPU vs 2, although it might be higher clocked.
The NGP was demoed running PS3 games at 20FPS @ 960x544 vs 60FPS @ 1920x1080 for the same games on the PS3. Immediately, that suggests the NGP is 6x slower than a PS3 and matches the fill rate ratio.
When it comes to quality though, it's possible to make a game look just as good on lower spec hardware, especially on a smaller screen. Turn down/off the AA, texture filtering, resolution etc.
It also depends on how much performance you can actually squeeze out the device. The XBox 360 for example is rated lower than a PS3 but it's easier to develop for and loads of games look better on the 360. Sony said they did this on purpose so that the console had a longer lifespan i.e games improve in quality during the console lifespan the more that devs get better with the tools. I personally think that's not a smart thing to do and obviously hasn't paid off for them.
If Apple doubles the GPU every year, it will reach PS3 quality in about 3 years i.e iPad 5 = PS3. Although Apple notes 9x for iPad 2, it's mostly 2-3x over last year.
The Playstation 4 is rumoured for 2012, which would make sense as the PSP came out 2005 and PS3 2006. NGP would be Christmas 2011 and PS4 sometime 2012, possibly Christmas 2012.
Given the difference in performance, there's a distinct advantage with the bigger consoles and 2011 GPUs can hit 70 billion texels/s+, even up to 100 billion with multi-GPU, which is what the PS4 would aim for and this moves the benchmark out a bit. It would take a further 5 years to catch up to that.
But it comes down profitability not quality. If they make consoles where the games take >3 years to develop and >$100m to make, which has been the case now, they won't make enough money to keep going. they definitely need to make smarter decisions going forward.
Apple has done this - quick game turnaround, every sale is a first-time sale = high profitability. It comes at the expense of some quality but it's a sustainable eco-system.
The XBOX360 is $200, the PS3 (almost always offered with a $50 GC) is $300. So you get both for less than $450.
The 4GB Flash one is, which is a fair point but I excluded that as it misses out functionality. People tend to prefer to get ones with HDDs but yeah, you can still get one for $200. The main point though is the cost of the games, which have to be taken into account.
Anything worth doing -- is worth doing badly!
Think about this for a minute -- If something needs to be done, the most important thing is that it gets done. Doing it right is desirable, but not necessary -- doing it badly is better than not doing it at all.
I was around in 1978 when the Apple ][ came out -- it had the ability to display 40x40 blocks of graphics in 16 colors -- it came with "Breakout" a Pong-like game.
It wasn't as good as a "Pong" machine -- but it was good enough, and cost a lot less.
Two points:
1) Breakout was good enough to approximate Pong.
2) Good enough brought the experience into a new venue -- the home!
Some will argue, but Doing Pong badly on an Apple ][ was one of the seminal influences of what gaming is today.
Monkey Ball on the iPad really sucks -- except compared to not having Monkey Ball on the iPad.
AIR, MonkeyBall was one of the first games shown on the iPhone (late 2007 - early 2008).
Monkey Ball has gotten better and so have the hundreds of thousands of multitouch games that followed.
Also the iPhone hardware has gotten better and proliferated into a family of iDevices.
We are at the very birth of portable/mobile/multiplayer multitouch games... with much to follow.
What will happen when someone releases a killer game that can only be run on an iPad -- with it's portability, touchscreen, cameras, accelerometers, gyroscope, etc.?
If iMovie, GarageBand and some of the other apps are any indication, the iPad has a convergence of capabilities that allow experiences to be done better than any other known way.
What/When will be the first game experience for which people will buy the iPad?
Invent a Leather Band to wrap around the iPad, covering the black bezel... Yep... Fine Leather, that'll get you feeling like your behind the steering wheel of a high performance vehicle!
Apple has the "Smart Cover"... This can be called the "Racing Cover"!
/
/
/
It would have to be not just any fine leather, but soft Corinthian leather!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIL3fbGbU2o
What will happen when someone releases a killer game that can only be run on an iPad -- with it's portability, touchscreen, cameras, accelerometers, gyroscope, etc.?
many other tablets have these same techs, and as we saw with Angry Birds, once a game saturates the iOs market, they make it work for every other mobile device/os out there...its a numbers game, once they have made some cash from teh original platform, they will go multi platform to make more...given a year or so you will likely see Android->ipad ports as well as iPad -> android
While nothing has quite reached the heights of the PS2 recently, the 2nd and 3rd place consoles have sold substantially more this generation than they did last generation (i.e. around 50million compared to 30million).
Also, there's a place for Apple's iPad in gaming, but it's too early to tell where it is. Touchscreen controls only work well for a few traditional games. I can't see shooting games being playable using an iPad + TV. Also, as stated by a few Apple guys, the iPad is still quite young - I don't think there are many developers who are taking advantage of what it can do especially regarding games. The ones we have now are mostly either ports of traditional games with touch controls slapped on, or unique games which are, unfortunately, quite short lived/ simple. Or Real Racing 2. Overall though, it's not quite matching console grade games yet.
Unless the game plays on AppleTV with a controller client on the iPad, iPod, or iPhone.
+1 and get a more personal experience as a result.
many other tablets have these same techs, and as we saw with Angry Birds, once a game saturates the iOs market, they make it work for every other mobile device/os out there...its a numbers game, once they have made some cash from teh original platform, they will go multi platform to make more...given a year or so you will likely see Android->ipad ports as well as iPad -> android
Even then there are plenty of caveats that make the iPad?s ecosystem better for most developers and consumers, as a whole. We can use Angry Birds as an examples of some of issues of porting to Android and dealing with HW, OS and wonky build issues, not to mention the difficulty of getting direct revenue from Android users for titles. I hope that isn?t the case longterm for Android but so far I see no evidence of that landscape changing.
Seems there's always confusion in these gaming topics. I don't think the iPad is infringing on gaming, rather it's bringing it to a bigger market - much like the Wii did. Those who like their proper console games will stick with them and while the hardcore market is "shrinking" it's only doing so because the market is expanding. Not because there are fewer hardcore gamers.
While nothing has quite reached the heights of the PS2 recently, the 2nd and 3rd place consoles have sold substantially more this generation than they did last generation (i.e. around 50million compared to 30million).
Also, there's a place for Apple's iPad in gaming, but it's too early to tell where it is. Touchscreen controls only work well for a few traditional games. I can't see shooting games being playable using an iPad + TV. Also, as stated by a few Apple guys, the iPad is still quite young - I don't think there are many developers who are taking advantage of what it can do especially regarding games. The ones we have now are mostly either ports of traditional games with touch controls slapped on, or unique games which are, unfortunately, quite short lived/ simple. Or Real Racing 2. Overall though, it's not quite matching console grade games yet.
Speaking of, is there any reason that future game console titles couldn?t be made to work with iOS-based iDevices? Don?t these consoles have a standard Bluetooth stack that is used by the controllers? If so, maybe these $60 titles for consoles will sell or give away App Store apps that extend the game play. This might be easier if AirPlay was licensed or open source, but I can see this as being possible with proprietary in-app services.
many other tablets have these same techs, and as we saw with Angry Birds, once a game saturates the iOs market, they make it work for every other mobile device/os out there...its a numbers game, once they have made some cash from teh original platform, they will go multi platform to make more...given a year or so you will likely see Android->ipad ports as well as iPad -> android
What will happen when someone releases a killer game that can only be run on a Tablet -- with it's portability, touchscreen, cameras, accelerometers, gyroscope, etc.?
...
What/When will be the first game experience for which people will buy a Tablet?