Some people do not realize that gaming is not only about graphics. Control, immersive game play is one of the reasons people still buy consoles. Consoles at the time of their release also Has industry leading graphics at a cheaper price due to the fact the OEMs sell them for a lost. They make the cost up with the sells of software. This is how the Wii lost out. There was not enough sells of games after people purchased them. The games it came with was all people played. Apple if they went after console games would not be seen as a viable option plan and simple.
1. Higher Cost of entry
2. Shorter life Cycle
3. Lack of great first party games like Uncharted and Halo (these are huge deliminators) Infinity blade is not going to cut it. with its current game play
4. Physical media. Games are getting too large to download now. A 64gb iPad could not hold the average gamers library and most gamers like to trade later. Allot of people like the Try before you buy idea of consoles and gamefly. Try a game if you like it buy it.
But if apple meets the needs of the gamer. Then I may buy it. For now the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are too weak for me and I primarily game on my Rig. I may buy a vita next week for portable gaming. ( I have a Galaxy Nexus and I find the games too arcade like and the screen plus controls is too small for me. I do have gameboid to play my Final Fantasies : ) )
Keep hearing Apple fans saying "there're tens of thousands of great iOS games out there!!"
Yes.. but ZERO when it comes to complex, immersive games such as Uncharted, Silent Hill, or Super Mario series..
It's such a simple notion that no Apple fanatic seems to wrap their heads around. Apple fanatics are just so adamant..
Yes.. most people are content with simplistic casual games and love the portability of iPads.
But.. the quality of games, substance just isn't up there with console titles.
Angry Bird is a great innovative game but it can't hold a candle to a title like Uncharted III.
Apple will still make a crap load of money in lucrative casual game market but can't replace consoles.
Don't throw logic into it - for them, it's not about having the exclusive titles (part of the reason why people choose one console over the other, or what they're friends are using (another part), or set top aspects (PS3 has BR, has had Netflix for years, or that Zune Marketplace has had 1080p content for a couple years), but if it's Apple it's all golden. Maybe all they friends play Words with Friends and use Game center though.
Also, the AAA titles on the consoles can take years to develop, and cost several million dollars, I can't see a Forza 4 coming to iOS anytime soon.
The graphical quality could be better than the 360/PS3, but those systems are like 6-7 years old now, but everything is a continual leapfrog.
I can see Apple doing alright in the console area, although the cost of an iPad + ATV + controller seem like a turn off, and given Apple's track record of supplying/supporting HW (2 years and it's done, see iPhoto on the original iPad) = eeh, but mainly it's there are really no compelling titles on iOS, and I still prefer Steam (on my PC), over my 360, because it's a more open system, that and they have awesome sales.
While the new iPad is certainly capable of console level graphics from 2006 device, there are too many severely crippling factors for Apple to simply jump into console gaming, otherwise they'd already be in it.
I think Apple is going at the gaming market in a stealth mode. The various pieces that Apple needs to hit that market hard are being wheeled into place piece by piece. Apple is already a force to be reckoned with in the portable gaming arena with the iPod Touch and the iPad. Only a couple more pieces are needed to go after all the bit the very top end of the gaming market. That may happen faster then Microsoft and Sony can anticipate.
But if apple meets the needs of the gamer. Then I may buy it. For now the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are too weak for me and I primarily game on my Rig. I may buy a vita next week for portable gaming. ( I have a Galaxy Nexus and I find the games too arcade like and the screen plus controls is too small for me. I do have gameboid to play my Final Fantasies : ) )
You may be a segment of the gaming market that Apple may never try to capture. RIght now Apple's doing very well in the handheld segment with the iPod Touch and the iPad. Some of the newer games for the new iPad may steal some PS3 & XBox 360 sales. I see Apple moving to skim the large segment of gamers that are looking for some diversion, but don't have the time and inclination to do serious gaming.
Apple's going to skate to where the puck will be and that may not be where you and I see it going.
It makes sense - put the expensive parts in the part of the device that goes with you. Instead of being tethered to a TV.
Talk about a radical approach, as well as killing two birds with one stone!
I think they could do both. Create a controller that works on ALL iOS and Mac devices. It would be nice for legacy titles that use controllers requiring tactile feedback. I think Apple is resisting an easy fix like this because they have something in mind to solve this problem and just haven't gotten it to work yet.
The real issue for a standalone Apple TV box is storage for downloaded game titles that work across all interface styles. That suggests the controller would have to have some form of touch input like the touchscreen on an iPhone or the mouse pad on a Mac. It would also need triggers and a way to traverse any targeting reticules quickly and accurately across the screen. Neither mice or game pads are particularly good at this. They are just better than nothing.
I think further evolution of Siri makes perfect sense for RTS games. Imagine giving the commands to your virtual armies like a sergeant major, general or centurion.
Or, an extension of Assassin's Creed where you are talking to your character to give assignment who the next would be the next kill. Pitted against other players, it would be like a chess match.
Other less violent application might be Sims of growing orchard, heading a corporation (who wants to fire Donald Trump?) etc.
There are so many possibilities. It is amazing none of the dedicated gaming powerhouses are thinking beyond what they have now, and still expect sales.
First, many PC gamers spend thousands on their systems. Second, there are already millions if iPads in circulation. And if a person is considering an iPad, anyway, then using it as a gaming device is free and saves them spending several hundred dollars on a console. So, under some scenarios, it's the cheapest way to go.
PC gaming is a small minority of gaming, for the precise reason you just stated. A significant number of people dont want to constantly dump hundreds of dollars just so they can play the lastest game at a reasonably acceptable level. This is why consoles are popular and why the iPad could be popular for gaming beyond the garbage that developers put out now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There are already tens of thousands of games for the iPad and many good ones.
The vast majority of them are just completely terrible. Remember we're talking console level now, and the best iOS has to offer is bargain bin in the console world, with many games like Infinity Blade would not translate over well with a controller. Its a completely different playing field, from controls to content.
If Apple just dumped a controller in your hands, it would not be any more of a gaming console than it would have before hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're stuck in one viewpoint. By your standards, Nintendo shouldn't have sold any Wii devices since the graphics are below the competition.
Be careful not to restrict the world you your own narrow perspective. There's no rule that says a game must have a few billion pixels to be fun.
Its more than just graphics crunching. It takes space to flesh out worlds in detail, do you think a game like Skyward Sword or Xenoblade or The Last Story (all gorgeous Wii games btw) would be possible with just 2 GB of space? With that said, there are great games well under 2GB that exist like games from the Nintendo Gamecube.
Personally I know its possible to get great console level games out but the dynamic of iOS (and smartphone devices in general) is that you need to get to market quickly, you cant spend years making a smartphone game.
The only viable option as it stands right now to get around the space predicament is to break games down into episodes and release them gradually over time like Sega is doing with Sonic.
Your going to seriously argue about value? Consoles tied to a TV vs an iPad that can not only take the place of the console - but also do a whole lot more WHILE NOT HAVING TO BE TETHERED TO A TV?!?
Comfy in your box?
I own my gaming consoles to do just that, play games (and Blu-Ray as well). I own an iPad 2, and it isnt to watch movies or play games on, so....idk what you want me to say here? Obviously millions of other people who have consoles bought them to do the same thing on. For all the things my iPad is great at, gaming is not one of them and if you get angry and butthurt over that, well there's not much i can tell you other than get over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
At $20 instead of sixty, not having to be tied to a DVD (or TV) is worth it. Speaking of, doesn't Sony and Nintendo charge you separately for mobile and console versions? Still sure you want to go down the value path?
Then again at least Sony and Nintendo have mobile gaming strategies...
What incoherent rant is this? $20 or $60 bucks for a game doesnt mean shit to me, you still have to sit down to enjoy said game, and a $20 mobile game (which doesnt exist other than Square -Enix's Nintendo DS ports which cost a heft 16 bucks) dont have anywhere near the same quality of their conter parts "tied to a TV".
Remember this is about Apple taking on gaming consoles, content of high quality has to be there otherwise its going to bomb horrendously. Its gonna take more than a bluetooth controller to do that.
Anyways I have about 40 titles that i can play on my PS3 and a Vita as soon as i get one, so im not sure what you are talking about here as well. Nintendo is currently embarking on the same thing with its Nintendo Network with a unified system for 3DS/Wii U so thats bunk as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
If that timeline is for content, not sure how that's a negative since its going to be constant for any platform. If your citing it as development time, like for the game engine, perhaps you missed the past three years of experience companies like EA have been and still are racking up combined with the dramatically better hardware.
I don't think the guy actually making money is as concerned as you are \
You are aware EA has been spitting out almost identical copies of the same shit for the past 3 years now with minimal graphical upgrades...right? They all reuse the same engine with minor upgrades for fast development time. On mobile devices speed = money.
It's why no developer has yet to even attempt a full console level game with depth that lasts far beyond 5 minutes. Time & money with no guarantee you'll get it back. I wish this wasnt the case but it is what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Your first half way legitimate concern. Except MS is rumored to be planning a disk-less successor to the 360.
And there's no way Apple or developers could use something like streaming to spread out downloads over time, or use some other strategy.
Even if MS killed a optical disk option, (which i doubt it will because yes there are still people without high speed internet, over 1/3 of 360s arent connected to the internet) you have high capacity storage in the form of a hard drive, and something i would presume to be interchangeable like the PS3.
The only thing Apple could do if it wanted to make a serious strike is streaming like OnLive, and then get every major publisher to play ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Yup, because Apple is known for releasing products and NEVER updating the way they work. Cast in stone they are.
What makes you think they will up the size cap? Apple has zero reason to other than for game developers, and no game developer is hitting the cap on size as it is right now so, for the time being it is set in stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42
Yup - its a lost cause. There is nothing Apple can do to overcome these issues! Whew! Sony, MS and Nintendo must be breathing easier now! Congratulations! There not doing it now, therefore they will never persue it!
Brilliant - absolutely brilliant....
Apple has things it needs to fix before taking on the consoles. That doesnt mean it couldn't be mixing it up with them but with the way things are it would stand little chance of survival in the home console area.
I think further evolution of Siri makes perfect sense for RTS games. Imagine giving the commands to your virtual armies like a sergeant major, general or centurion.
Or, an extension of Assassin's Creed where you are talking to your character to give assignment who the next would be the next kill. Pitted against other players, it would be like a chess match.
Other less violent application might be Sims of growing orchard, heading a corporation (who wants to fire Donald Trump?) etc.
There are so many possibilities. It is amazing none of the dedicated gaming powerhouses are thinking beyond what they have now, and still expect sales.
You don't have to imagine giving voice commands in a game, it already exists.
For the price of an iPad 3rd generation I could spend $50 more and pickup another PS3 and another PS3 3D display.
That's a total of $550, which is less than the $600 iPad and Apple TV combo. Also, with the Apple setup I'd still need a TV and controller.
And don't get me started on gaming peripherals being hooked up, like my force feed back steering wheel.
Putting gamers in a box and trying to define them is ridiculous. There is more than just casual and hardcore gamers. All it is, is different games played by different people on different platforms.
I would personally welcome a hardcore experience from an i device. Competition doesn't kill innovation, it grows it. But currently the experience and the price do not meet my needs, and hopefully some day it will.
If Apple wants iPad to be your new console they have a lot more to do than simply start selling a game controller.
First up would be releasing some games that aren't crap.
The iPad has obviously made developers a whole bunch of money, and there is a feeling of something "magical" when you hold such a thin and light device and see it running a game, even more so the first time your AirPlay it to a TV. It just feels futuristic.
It feels so futuristic that there is an almost constant chatter about using the iPad as a console.
However the elephant in the room (that no-one seems to want to talk about) is that attempts at console-quality titles (like Infinity Blade or Real Racing 2) are abysmal.
When compared to something like Forza 4, the gameplay on a title like Real Racing 2 is monotonous, one dimensional, shallow, and feels like a cheap imitation of a real game. There is a scarcity of compelling gameplay modes and opportunities that is nothing short of deficient which leads to essentially non-existent replay ability. The idea of community is essentially absent. Essentially it doesn?t even begin to touch on Forza or Gran Turismo 4 from the Xbox\\PS2 days, let-alone the titles on the current-generation of consoles.
If a title like this was released on the X360 or PS3 it would be lucky to metascore a 3 or 4 out of 10.
Where the iPad excels is at ultra-casual games like Cut the Rope, Osmosis, Plants vs Zombies, World of Goo and of course Angry Birds.
These are the kind of games that can fill in a few minutes during a TV advertisement or whilst waiting for the kettle to boil.
In other words the iPad shines as a system for gaming to pass time, not gaming for a hobby.
A graphical contrast
I actually don't think graphics are a big issue. The Wii has had some fantastic games this generation and I'd be surprised if the iPad 3 isn't pushing graphics close to or past what the Wii is at the moment.
That said, I don't think we'll see graphics from iPad match that of the most powerful consoles.
Here is a comparison (click) of Gran Turismo 4 (PS2 circa 2004), Real Racing 2 (iPad 2) and Gran Turismo 5 (PS3).
The capacity for greatness
If Apple were actually serious about taking on the consoles I think you would know about it.
The first step would be for them to buy something like OnLive because, among other issues, there is a storage problem on the iPad.
Current-generation games are generally between 7GB to 20GB, and that's using game assets for what is generally a sub 720p resolutions.
If you bump that resolution to >1080p (like the iPad 3) then the game assets will need to improve as well, so you're looking at least 10GB-28GB games, probably much higher.
The only solution is some in-house game hub the iPad utilizes (very un-Apple like) or to run something like an OnLive service.
The second step would be some very high profile acquisitions, like EA, and the creation of an "Apple Game Studios".
No 3rd party game publisher is going to accept the risk of a 2 to 3 year lead-time to create a AAA iPad title. There is no way of knowing what the iPad will look like in 2 to 3 years? time, so it would be like trying to hit a moving target with your eyes closed.
The only company that knows what the iPad will look like in 2 to 3 years? time is Apple themselves.
Similarly no game publisher is going to accept the risk of a $50 to $100 million budget to develop a AAA iPad title. Certainly not when there is good "safe" money to be made with creating ultra-casual games.
Apple would need to prove to 3rd party game publishers that the ROI on a AAA iPad title is worth the investment.
The only way Apple are going to get games onto the iPad that are not crap is to do it themselves.
Comments
Yes.. but ZERO when it comes to complex, immersive games such as Uncharted, Silent Hill, or Super Mario series..
It's such a simple notion that no Apple fanatic seems to wrap their heads around. Apple fanatics are just so adamant..
Yes.. most people are content with simplistic casual games and love the portability of iPads.
But.. the quality of games, substance just isn't up there with console titles.
Angry Bird is a great innovative game but it can't hold a candle to a title like Uncharted III.
Apple will still make a crap load of money in lucrative casual game market but can't replace consoles.
1. Higher Cost of entry
2. Shorter life Cycle
3. Lack of great first party games like Uncharted and Halo (these are huge deliminators) Infinity blade is not going to cut it. with its current game play
4. Physical media. Games are getting too large to download now. A 64gb iPad could not hold the average gamers library and most gamers like to trade later. Allot of people like the Try before you buy idea of consoles and gamefly. Try a game if you like it buy it.
But if apple meets the needs of the gamer. Then I may buy it. For now the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are too weak for me and I primarily game on my Rig. I may buy a vita next week for portable gaming. ( I have a Galaxy Nexus and I find the games too arcade like and the screen plus controls is too small for me. I do have gameboid to play my Final Fantasies : ) )
Keep hearing Apple fans saying "there're tens of thousands of great iOS games out there!!"
Yes.. but ZERO when it comes to complex, immersive games such as Uncharted, Silent Hill, or Super Mario series..
It's such a simple notion that no Apple fanatic seems to wrap their heads around. Apple fanatics are just so adamant..
Yes.. most people are content with simplistic casual games and love the portability of iPads.
But.. the quality of games, substance just isn't up there with console titles.
Angry Bird is a great innovative game but it can't hold a candle to a title like Uncharted III.
Apple will still make a crap load of money in lucrative casual game market but can't replace consoles.
Don't throw logic into it - for them, it's not about having the exclusive titles (part of the reason why people choose one console over the other, or what they're friends are using (another part), or set top aspects (PS3 has BR, has had Netflix for years, or that Zune Marketplace has had 1080p content for a couple years), but if it's Apple it's all golden. Maybe all they friends play Words with Friends and use Game center though.
Also, the AAA titles on the consoles can take years to develop, and cost several million dollars, I can't see a Forza 4 coming to iOS anytime soon.
The graphical quality could be better than the 360/PS3, but those systems are like 6-7 years old now, but everything is a continual leapfrog.
I can see Apple doing alright in the console area, although the cost of an iPad + ATV + controller seem like a turn off, and given Apple's track record of supplying/supporting HW (2 years and it's done, see iPhoto on the original iPad) = eeh, but mainly it's there are really no compelling titles on iOS, and I still prefer Steam (on my PC), over my 360, because it's a more open system, that and they have awesome sales.
While the new iPad is certainly capable of console level graphics from 2006 device, there are too many severely crippling factors for Apple to simply jump into console gaming, otherwise they'd already be in it.
I think Apple is going at the gaming market in a stealth mode. The various pieces that Apple needs to hit that market hard are being wheeled into place piece by piece. Apple is already a force to be reckoned with in the portable gaming arena with the iPod Touch and the iPad. Only a couple more pieces are needed to go after all the bit the very top end of the gaming market. That may happen faster then Microsoft and Sony can anticipate.
But if apple meets the needs of the gamer. Then I may buy it. For now the PS3 and the XBOX 360 are too weak for me and I primarily game on my Rig. I may buy a vita next week for portable gaming. ( I have a Galaxy Nexus and I find the games too arcade like and the screen plus controls is too small for me. I do have gameboid to play my Final Fantasies : ) )
You may be a segment of the gaming market that Apple may never try to capture. RIght now Apple's doing very well in the handheld segment with the iPod Touch and the iPad. Some of the newer games for the new iPad may steal some PS3 & XBox 360 sales. I see Apple moving to skim the large segment of gamers that are looking for some diversion, but don't have the time and inclination to do serious gaming.
Apple's going to skate to where the puck will be and that may not be where you and I see it going.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/electronics/retro-gaming/ecea/
Hopefully the first of many...
It makes sense - put the expensive parts in the part of the device that goes with you. Instead of being tethered to a TV.
Talk about a radical approach, as well as killing two birds with one stone!
I think they could do both. Create a controller that works on ALL iOS and Mac devices. It would be nice for legacy titles that use controllers requiring tactile feedback. I think Apple is resisting an easy fix like this because they have something in mind to solve this problem and just haven't gotten it to work yet.
The real issue for a standalone Apple TV box is storage for downloaded game titles that work across all interface styles. That suggests the controller would have to have some form of touch input like the touchscreen on an iPhone or the mouse pad on a Mac. It would also need triggers and a way to traverse any targeting reticules quickly and accurately across the screen. Neither mice or game pads are particularly good at this. They are just better than nothing.
Or, an extension of Assassin's Creed where you are talking to your character to give assignment who the next would be the next kill. Pitted against other players, it would be like a chess match.
Other less violent application might be Sims of growing orchard, heading a corporation (who wants to fire Donald Trump?) etc.
There are so many possibilities. It is amazing none of the dedicated gaming powerhouses are thinking beyond what they have now, and still expect sales.
Price isn't much of an issue.
First, many PC gamers spend thousands on their systems. Second, there are already millions if iPads in circulation. And if a person is considering an iPad, anyway, then using it as a gaming device is free and saves them spending several hundred dollars on a console. So, under some scenarios, it's the cheapest way to go.
PC gaming is a small minority of gaming, for the precise reason you just stated. A significant number of people dont want to constantly dump hundreds of dollars just so they can play the lastest game at a reasonably acceptable level. This is why consoles are popular and why the iPad could be popular for gaming beyond the garbage that developers put out now.
There are already tens of thousands of games for the iPad and many good ones.
The vast majority of them are just completely terrible. Remember we're talking console level now, and the best iOS has to offer is bargain bin in the console world, with many games like Infinity Blade would not translate over well with a controller. Its a completely different playing field, from controls to content.
If Apple just dumped a controller in your hands, it would not be any more of a gaming console than it would have before hand.
You're stuck in one viewpoint. By your standards, Nintendo shouldn't have sold any Wii devices since the graphics are below the competition.
Be careful not to restrict the world you your own narrow perspective. There's no rule that says a game must have a few billion pixels to be fun.
Its more than just graphics crunching. It takes space to flesh out worlds in detail, do you think a game like Skyward Sword or Xenoblade or The Last Story (all gorgeous Wii games btw) would be possible with just 2 GB of space? With that said, there are great games well under 2GB that exist like games from the Nintendo Gamecube.
Personally I know its possible to get great console level games out but the dynamic of iOS (and smartphone devices in general) is that you need to get to market quickly, you cant spend years making a smartphone game.
The only viable option as it stands right now to get around the space predicament is to break games down into episodes and release them gradually over time like Sega is doing with Sonic.
Your going to seriously argue about value? Consoles tied to a TV vs an iPad that can not only take the place of the console - but also do a whole lot more WHILE NOT HAVING TO BE TETHERED TO A TV?!?
Comfy in your box?
I own my gaming consoles to do just that, play games (and Blu-Ray as well). I own an iPad 2, and it isnt to watch movies or play games on, so....idk what you want me to say here? Obviously millions of other people who have consoles bought them to do the same thing on. For all the things my iPad is great at, gaming is not one of them and if you get angry and butthurt over that, well there's not much i can tell you other than get over it.
At $20 instead of sixty, not having to be tied to a DVD (or TV) is worth it. Speaking of, doesn't Sony and Nintendo charge you separately for mobile and console versions? Still sure you want to go down the value path?
Then again at least Sony and Nintendo have mobile gaming strategies...
What incoherent rant is this? $20 or $60 bucks for a game doesnt mean shit to me, you still have to sit down to enjoy said game, and a $20 mobile game (which doesnt exist other than Square -Enix's Nintendo DS ports which cost a heft 16 bucks) dont have anywhere near the same quality of their conter parts "tied to a TV".
Remember this is about Apple taking on gaming consoles, content of high quality has to be there otherwise its going to bomb horrendously. Its gonna take more than a bluetooth controller to do that.
Anyways I have about 40 titles that i can play on my PS3 and a Vita as soon as i get one, so im not sure what you are talking about here as well. Nintendo is currently embarking on the same thing with its Nintendo Network with a unified system for 3DS/Wii U so thats bunk as well.
If that timeline is for content, not sure how that's a negative since its going to be constant for any platform. If your citing it as development time, like for the game engine, perhaps you missed the past three years of experience companies like EA have been and still are racking up combined with the dramatically better hardware.
I don't think the guy actually making money is as concerned as you are
You are aware EA has been spitting out almost identical copies of the same shit for the past 3 years now with minimal graphical upgrades...right? They all reuse the same engine with minor upgrades for fast development time. On mobile devices speed = money.
It's why no developer has yet to even attempt a full console level game with depth that lasts far beyond 5 minutes. Time & money with no guarantee you'll get it back. I wish this wasnt the case but it is what it is.
Your first half way legitimate concern. Except MS is rumored to be planning a disk-less successor to the 360.
And there's no way Apple or developers could use something like streaming to spread out downloads over time, or use some other strategy.
Even if MS killed a optical disk option, (which i doubt it will because yes there are still people without high speed internet, over 1/3 of 360s arent connected to the internet) you have high capacity storage in the form of a hard drive, and something i would presume to be interchangeable like the PS3.
The only thing Apple could do if it wanted to make a serious strike is streaming like OnLive, and then get every major publisher to play ball.
Yup, because Apple is known for releasing products and NEVER updating the way they work. Cast in stone they are.
What makes you think they will up the size cap? Apple has zero reason to other than for game developers, and no game developer is hitting the cap on size as it is right now so, for the time being it is set in stone.
Yup - its a lost cause. There is nothing Apple can do to overcome these issues! Whew! Sony, MS and Nintendo must be breathing easier now! Congratulations! There not doing it now, therefore they will never persue it!
Brilliant - absolutely brilliant....
Apple has things it needs to fix before taking on the consoles. That doesnt mean it couldn't be mixing it up with them but with the way things are it would stand little chance of survival in the home console area.
I think further evolution of Siri makes perfect sense for RTS games. Imagine giving the commands to your virtual armies like a sergeant major, general or centurion.
Or, an extension of Assassin's Creed where you are talking to your character to give assignment who the next would be the next kill. Pitted against other players, it would be like a chess match.
Other less violent application might be Sims of growing orchard, heading a corporation (who wants to fire Donald Trump?) etc.
There are so many possibilities. It is amazing none of the dedicated gaming powerhouses are thinking beyond what they have now, and still expect sales.
You don't have to imagine giving voice commands in a game, it already exists.
For the price of an iPad 3rd generation I could spend $50 more and pickup another PS3 and another PS3 3D display.
That's a total of $550, which is less than the $600 iPad and Apple TV combo. Also, with the Apple setup I'd still need a TV and controller.
And don't get me started on gaming peripherals being hooked up, like my force feed back steering wheel.
Putting gamers in a box and trying to define them is ridiculous. There is more than just casual and hardcore gamers. All it is, is different games played by different people on different platforms.
I would personally welcome a hardcore experience from an i device. Competition doesn't kill innovation, it grows it. But currently the experience and the price do not meet my needs, and hopefully some day it will.
If Apple wants iPad to be your new console they have a lot more to do than simply start selling a game controller.
First up would be releasing some games that aren't crap.
The iPad has obviously made developers a whole bunch of money, and there is a feeling of something "magical" when you hold such a thin and light device and see it running a game, even more so the first time your AirPlay it to a TV. It just feels futuristic.
It feels so futuristic that there is an almost constant chatter about using the iPad as a console.
However the elephant in the room (that no-one seems to want to talk about) is that attempts at console-quality titles (like Infinity Blade or Real Racing 2) are abysmal.
When compared to something like Forza 4, the gameplay on a title like Real Racing 2 is monotonous, one dimensional, shallow, and feels like a cheap imitation of a real game. There is a scarcity of compelling gameplay modes and opportunities that is nothing short of deficient which leads to essentially non-existent replay ability. The idea of community is essentially absent. Essentially it doesn?t even begin to touch on Forza or Gran Turismo 4 from the Xbox\\PS2 days, let-alone the titles on the current-generation of consoles.
If a title like this was released on the X360 or PS3 it would be lucky to metascore a 3 or 4 out of 10.
Where the iPad excels is at ultra-casual games like Cut the Rope, Osmosis, Plants vs Zombies, World of Goo and of course Angry Birds.
These are the kind of games that can fill in a few minutes during a TV advertisement or whilst waiting for the kettle to boil.
In other words the iPad shines as a system for gaming to pass time, not gaming for a hobby.
A graphical contrast
I actually don't think graphics are a big issue. The Wii has had some fantastic games this generation and I'd be surprised if the iPad 3 isn't pushing graphics close to or past what the Wii is at the moment.
That said, I don't think we'll see graphics from iPad match that of the most powerful consoles.
Here is a comparison (click) of Gran Turismo 4 (PS2 circa 2004), Real Racing 2 (iPad 2) and Gran Turismo 5 (PS3).
The capacity for greatness
If Apple were actually serious about taking on the consoles I think you would know about it.
The first step would be for them to buy something like OnLive because, among other issues, there is a storage problem on the iPad.
Current-generation games are generally between 7GB to 20GB, and that's using game assets for what is generally a sub 720p resolutions.
If you bump that resolution to >1080p (like the iPad 3) then the game assets will need to improve as well, so you're looking at least 10GB-28GB games, probably much higher.
The only solution is some in-house game hub the iPad utilizes (very un-Apple like) or to run something like an OnLive service.
The second step would be some very high profile acquisitions, like EA, and the creation of an "Apple Game Studios".
No 3rd party game publisher is going to accept the risk of a 2 to 3 year lead-time to create a AAA iPad title. There is no way of knowing what the iPad will look like in 2 to 3 years? time, so it would be like trying to hit a moving target with your eyes closed.
The only company that knows what the iPad will look like in 2 to 3 years? time is Apple themselves.
Similarly no game publisher is going to accept the risk of a $50 to $100 million budget to develop a AAA iPad title. Certainly not when there is good "safe" money to be made with creating ultra-casual games.
Apple would need to prove to 3rd party game publishers that the ROI on a AAA iPad title is worth the investment.
The only way Apple are going to get games onto the iPad that are not crap is to do it themselves.