Except that view is disconnected 100% from reality. The reality is that gamers (the people who spend billions yearly in this industry) have panned the notion of taking 10 steps backwards to accommodate iOS gaming in the living room, look for this same article in gaming sites and you can see the vitriol and crucifying he received for his comments, they are out of touch with the industry and the people spending their money.
The difference between console gaming and ios gaming is like the difference between Hollywood and some horrific day time soap. The production values are nowhere near the same, and Apple stands very little chance to sway the core audience from established platforms.
The problem is, gamers (the people who spend billions yearly in this industry) can pan it as much as they like, it won't change the fact that the current business model for the games market is increasingly shaky. With games costing hundreds of millions to make for the big games consoles, it won't be long until the whole thing becomes unsustainable, and something like iOS in the living room will be welcomed by the developers.
What will dictate the winners and losers in the games console market isn't what the gamers want, it's where the money can be made.
I'm sure gamers who want a handheld console would prefer the PS Vita over an iPhone, but I'd rather be invested in a company making games for the iPhone.
is about 60% as fast as the 6630M in the Mac Mini. According to John Carmack, the iPad 2 was around half the performance of the PS3 and 360:
Remembering you are comparing a 2006 device to a 2011 device.
The fact that the hardware of a console stays consistant throughout it's liftspan is a massive advantage, I know the games I purchase anytime in the lifespan will work, and work at the same performance level if I get them at day one, or at day 600
The great thing is that when people buy content from the iTunes Store, the games can work on their iPads and iPhones too and savegames can go into iCloud. They can also upgrade their Apple TV every year and all the games still work.
You mean just like the PS3 does now? I can upgrade my PS3 and the games still work. Now will the Apple TV you talk about (or the iPhones etc) do the reverse like the PS3/XBox 360 does? AAA titles from 2013 will still work on a 2006 ps3/xbox360, will a AAA iOS game from 2013 work at the same quality/performance on an original iPhone?
They'd get Disney exclusive games for the kids. It would be pretty serious competition for the Wii U and it wouldn't have to be all that aggressively marketed. Apple can pay for game ports of old games and they just get 50-100 major AAA titles on there and it's done.
They wouldn't get exclusives, they would have to pay for exclusives, and Microsoft and Sony have a lot of the major AAA titles tied up
I can upgrade my PS3 and the games still work. Now will the Apple TV you talk about (or the iPhones etc) do the reverse like the PS3/XBox 360 does? AAA titles from 2013 will still work on a 2006 ps3/xbox360, will a AAA iOS game from 2013 work at the same quality/performance on an original iPhone?
They don't have to have the same length of compatibility. 3-4 years of compatibility would be enough, which they seem to manage already and you'd be able to resell the hardware to upgrade to the latest model same as you do with a computer.
It's better than trying to shoehorn 2013 games onto 2006 hardware.
They might struggle to get AAA exclusive titles without paying for them but they have money. A decent AAA game can be developed for $10-20m. Apple could commission 5-10 exclusives themselves and they'd more than make their money back with over 400 million iOS users. They can charge $3 and 4-7 million copies makes a profit.
I doubt they'd even make $20m AAA games because they'd look for a 1-2 year turnaround.
The problem is, gamers (the people who spend billions yearly in this industry) can pan it as much as they like, it won't change the fact that the current business model for the games market is increasingly shaky. With games costing hundreds of millions to make for the big games consoles, it won't be long until the whole thing becomes unsustainable, and something like iOS in the living room will be welcomed by the developers.
What will dictate the winners and losers in the games console market isn't what the gamers want, it's where the money can be made.
I'm sure gamers who want a handheld console would prefer the PS Vita over an iPhone, but I'd rather be invested in a company making games for the iPhone.
You have stated the one truth most people are ignoring - what succeeds will be what gamers want. That principle neatly negates your first paragraph. The existing games development model exists because it delivers what a lot of gamers want, the immersive high production value A ranking games.
You might as well argue that the exiting model for the production of Hollywood style blockbuster movies is broken, It can't last. Small independent French art house style films will slip in and take over when the big studios and their huge edifice of high cost, high production value films topples into the dust under it's own unsustainable weight.
Er, no.
As with Hollywood blockbusters, the top selling games are mostly those that cost a lot to produce. Modern Warfare 2 is said to have cost between 40 and 50 million - as of January 18, 2010, it had taken over 1 billion in sales. Such a broken business model.
Most of the top games of recent times have been those with high production values like Halo 4, Assassin's Creed 3, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Far Cry 3 etc. Although a lot these games are visually impressive, they could have been a lot more so had the current console hardware not been frozen at 6 year old tech.
Arguing that the Apple TV style hardware can easily crush existing consoles is rather missing the fact that the Xbox and PS consoles are both due for replacement this year. Any hypothetical Apple TV gaming system is going to have to be competing with the new consoles, not the old. My understanding is that mobile GPUs will only get to match the current Xbox 360's GPU capabilities later this year - by which time the GPUs in the new consoles will be way ahead. I have seen an estimate of the GPU capability for the next Xbox, which touts AMD 7000 series graphics capabilities, which if true, would slightly trump iOS GPUs.
I really don't see Apple ever providing enough GPU grunt to take on the next gen consoles. Nor would they ever provide enough memory, SD, or disc based storage. Both consoles are rumoured to include Blu-ray drives. A game disc could therefore hold 50 Gb of date, which is now necessary given the scale of some modern games. Battlefield 3, Halo 4, Mass Effect 2 & 3 all come as 2 DVD disc sets.
iOS gaming is a completely different market to the one the Xbox and PS consoles cater to. Unless Apple provides hardware capable of running the A rank games, I don't see them displacing consoles, and given their liking for relatively enormous margins on their hardware, I doubt they will compete in this particular entertainment arena.
The person who invented the XBox is talking about products that might compete with the XBox. Yes, he knows something about it.
Woz left Apple decades before the iPhone was even envisioned and therefore never had any involvement with the iPhone. He has no more credibility than a layman.
Except since the Apple TV seems to be receiving a yearly update, games will be made during the standard "five year" lifecycle that the earliest Apple TVs won't be able to play.
Meaning $495 for Apple TVs to play all the games in the same timeframe that a standalone console would be able to play.
OR you're asking developers to hold their games back for the old models, which Apple never does.
Is there a big difference between buying a new gaming aTV for $200 every 2-3 years as opposed to $500 for a new XBox every 10?
App game developers already deal with a few generations of iOS devices and retina vs non-retina devices. PC game devs have had low/med/high settings for nearly forever.
I think that the A5X aTV would be a decent enough performer at $99 to kick off gaming. I think that even through Tim said he didn't want to get into the traditional console market he left room for an iPad/iPhone + aTV hybrid gaming approach to eliminate the lag seen in the current AirPlay solution.
The aTV SDK could provide iOS app devs the ability to tap the aTV for rendering, multi-iOS device coordination (including non-local iOS devices) and local BT controllers. Higher quality (aka bigger) textures could be hosted on the aTV since they would be unneeded on the iPhone/iPod Touch.
You have stated the one truth most people are ignoring - what succeeds will be what gamers want. That principle neatly negates your first paragraph. The existing games development model exists because it delivers what a lot of gamers want, the immersive high production value A ranking games.
I would caveat that as "what succeeds will be what game buyers want". That's actually a slightly different demographic since it removes a lot of younger games and adds quite a few parents.
As a parent I push iOS gaming hard. My kids wanted a 3DS. I said hell no. Here's an iPad. My wife looked at me like I was an idiot until I showed her the difference in game prices. Plus the iPad is useful for other things besides gaming.
Gamers may want immersive high production value AAA games. What their parents are going to be willing to buy after being exposed to $0.99 to $19.99 titles on iOS may be something else.
Plus, unless Microsoft makes the XBox Next a full fledged home server that can also run Office I'm more inclined to get a gaming rig HDTV than a console except for Kinect style games. A lot of those games are not high production value AAA games but fun social games. Something that a game enable aTV could handle.
Is there a big difference between buying a new gaming aTV for $200 every 2-3 years as opposed to $500 for a new XBox every 10?
Oh, are we kicking the price up even further? Yes, there's a big difference; in a year's time that Apple TV is outdated, whereas the console gets five years of assured compatibility.
Console life cycles are 5 years. If you're buying one every ten, you'd be replacing your Nintendo 64 with a Wii, for example.
I'm trying to look at it from a gamer's perspective—one who would be the "early adopter" for new consoles, buying them as soon as they're released and then their successor, etc.
The Apple TV seems like a more expensive option in that regard, even at $99, since games will be made that don't run on it after a single year.
Though if the prices of the Big Three consoles trend upward as the Wii U has been forced to, we'll see the Xbox and PlayStation 4 be something like $599 and $899…
I would caveat that as "what succeeds will be what game buyers want". That's actually a slightly different demographic since it removes a lot of younger games and adds quite a few parents.
As a parent I push iOS gaming hard. My kids wanted a 3DS. I said hell no. Here's an iPad. My wife looked at me like I was an idiot until I showed her the difference in game prices. Plus the iPad is useful for other things besides gaming.
Gamers may want immersive high production value AAA games. What their parents are going to be willing to buy after being exposed to $0.99 to $19.99 titles on iOS may be something else.
Plus, unless Microsoft makes the XBox Next a full fledged home server that can also run Office I'm more inclined to get a gaming rig HDTV than a console except for Kinect style games. A lot of those games are not high production value AAA games but fun social games. Something that a game enable aTV could handle.
As a parent, I tend to get my children the games they want. While my daughter is satisfied with some iOS games, my son would not be, and there are many Xbox games my daughter enjoys as well.
I therefore buy xbox games mostly.
So while there obviously are parents who will push iOS, there are obviously those who won't.
I don't think you can compare the A ranked game market with the sort that will run on iOS. I think they are different markets and the guy whinging about the xbox is a self confessed iOS developer. His whole piece is predicated on his wish he could tap into the xBox as a small developer and cash in. He can't at the moment so he's venting his displeasure and tossing toys out of the pram and predicting the demise of consoles at the hand of A TV style devices. He's entitled to his view, but I really don't see the demand for A ranked games going away or of A TV being upgraded to the point it could run even the current ones, let alone the next generation ones. For a taste of the next generation of A ranked games, I think you want to be looking at Crysis 3 performance on a gaming PC. There is not the slightest chance of Apple providing any hardware that could run that with the developers spec in hardware. A Mac Pro is the only hardware Apple makes with a good enough GPU to run crysis 3, and you would need the HD 5870 card option at $200 to achieve the recommended level of performance.
Apple Television (high-end, simple to use, ideally with a-la-carte programming)
Apple TV thingy with the ability to run apps
Bluetooth game controller
Why do they need a TV. Why do they need a controller. Why do they need to hurry. History shows the opposite works out for them.
So the box doesn't have the programming? Why is it called Apple TV, then? So the television can't run apps? How does that solve any problems with modern TV? They already have controllers.
Oh, are we kicking the price up even further? Yes, there's a big difference; in a year's time that Apple TV is outdated, whereas the console gets five years of assured compatibility.
Console life cycles are 5 years. If you're buying one every ten, you'd be replacing your Nintendo 64 with a Wii, for example.
The XBox 360 was launched on May 2005. It's Feb 2013. The launch announcement is expected in June. That's 8 years. I was saying 10 to be nice. $500 every 7-8 years is more money during the console lifecycle.
Did I bump the price up? Sure. A BT controller, more RAM, more flash, etc and $199 seems reasonable. Maybe $149.
Quote:
The Apple TV seems like a more expensive option in that regard, even at $99, since games will be made that don't run on it after a single year.
$99 every year vs $500 every 5 years is the same cost.
My iPad 1 had a 2-3 year useful life gaming not 1. Heck, IB2 runs on the iPad 1. Only apps that require iOS 6+ won't run.
I expect the iPad 4 to be good at least 2-3 years.
Is it going to be the same as the Xbox next or PS4? Nope. Does it have to be? Not at $99. Or even $199.
A $99 aTV won't ever have the horsepower to beat a console. The question is whether two iphones/ipads and an aTV can give you lag free, high quality gaming for the less demanding genres?
The XBox 360 was launched on May 2005. It's Feb 2013. The launch announcement is expected in June. That's 8 years.
Right, I'm just going off of past cycles, to which Nintendo, at least, is still adhering. Sony says the PS3 will be their machine until 2018. Good luck with that.
$99 every year vs $500 every 5 years is the same cost.
But consoles have historically been meaningfully less than $500.
My iPad 1 had a 2-3 year useful life gaming not 1. Heck, IB2 runs on the iPad 1. Only apps that require iOS 6+ won't run.
Right, right! But still, there are games optimized for newer iPads that literally STUTTER on the first-gen. That one new space game comes to mind… there's an HD version and a regular version; they specifically say "don't get the HD version if you have the first-gen iPad", but why would you even make it available to that model if you know it's going to stutter?!
Is it going to be the same as the Xbox next or PS4? Nope. Does it have to be? Not at $99. Or even $199.
I think you've hit it on the nose. A dedicated iOS device for gaming will be catering to casual gamers (read: nearly everyone that plays video games) rather than self-designated "hardcore" gamers. Except the Apple gaming device will give dedicated gaming rigs and consoles a run for their money graphically, while still having the quality (and, of course, not) stories and gameplay afforded to games across the spectrum.
Many "hardcore" gamers just play first person shoot-em-ups. You know, the games that are the exact same every year, rereleased? And many "casual" games are some of the most innovative. We've already seen great stuff, both graphically and in gameplay, come out of iOS, even as a handheld trio. Console manufacturers are right to worry about the future. Even without dedicated TV-based hardware, since AirPlay!
For a taste of the next generation of A ranked games, I think you want to be looking at Crysis 3 performance on a gaming PC. There is not the slightest chance of Apple providing any hardware that could run that with the developers spec in hardware. A Mac Pro is the only hardware Apple makes with a good enough GPU to run crysis 3, and you would need the HD 5870 card option at $200 to achieve the recommended level of performance.
There are guys running Crysis 3 beta on 2011 iMacs.
So run Crysis 3? Absolutely.
The current mid grade 27" iMac ($1999+) with the GTX 675MX meets or exceeds the recommended specs.
The statement that the mac pro is the only mac that can meet recommended specs for Crysis 3 is wrong.
The top end 27" iMac ($2400+) mostly meets the high end recommended specs. The GTX 680MX is an underclocked GTX 680 so with the 3.4 Ghz quad i7 it's pretty close.
Run with all settings maxed? Meh. Few PC gamers have rigs that can do that either.
For $99 you wouldn't expect it to either. I think the A5X makes it a bit faster than the Wii though and given Infinity Blade 2 you can do pretty nice graphics on it.
They don't have to have the same length of compatibility. 3-4 years of compatibility would be enough, which they seem to manage already and you'd be able to resell the hardware to upgrade to the latest model same as you do with a computer.
A 32GB iPad mini costs $700, a PS3 costs $400, a gaming "aTV" would cost a lot more than the $150 they sell for now. I don't want to have to replace my console every 3-4 years, that is the advantage of the console.
They might struggle to get AAA exclusive titles without paying for them but they have money. A decent AAA game can be developed for $10-20m. Apple could commission 5-10 exclusives themselves and they'd more than make their money back with over 400 million iOS users. They can charge $3 and 4-7 million copies makes a profit.
I doubt they'd even make $20m AAA games because they'd look for a 1-2 year turnaround.
That is a single game from a single developer. Was it a developer choice or Apple paying them? How do they get on with games like Killzone, LBP, Drakes Fortune, Halo, Ratchet & Clank etc?
I am not saying that Apple can't/won't do well at this, causal gaming is big, but the AAA exclusives will be harder to break into, you either have to pay a lot, or risk stepping on someones IP toes
It's better than trying to shoehorn 2013 games onto 2006 hardware.
Actually it takes a few years before developers understand how to take full advantage of the hardware. Change the hardware more often and they'll forever be behind the learning curve.
I don't see how Angry Birds on 99$ Apple TV can kill PS3/XBOX FPS games so it's rather fanboy's wishful thinking. But iPad for sure scored kill on handheld devices from Sony and Nintendo.
The founder of xBox probably knows a bit about the game console market.
It's obviously just his opinion and could easily be wrong, but that's nothing like your silly comments.
He's probably referring to Apple allowing iPad apps to run on the box --- which isn't too big a project for Apple. They should have done this by now IMO.
My XBox has a 40 gig hard drive. Other than the graphics -- it doesn't have too much about it that is any stretch for even the most basic PC. If Apple just expanded some capabilities to the iOS development platform -- it would have a very capable environment for games and an army of developers.
Microsoft is already moving this direction and will probably make porting from XBox to the Surface a fairly easy process (in theory). However, going from a resource rich high powered environment to a lower spec is a lot more work than going the other direction. If anything, I'm thinking the XBox cofounder is referring to that last point; right now, Microsoft has merely a toe-hold in the "portable" game market. Apple has the lions share. You can get a thousand fun little games on iOS for nothing or a $1 -- and that has to be killing the Nintendo hand-held gaming market.It's really Apple's game to lose.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail
Except that view is disconnected 100% from reality. The reality is that gamers (the people who spend billions yearly in this industry) have panned the notion of taking 10 steps backwards to accommodate iOS gaming in the living room, look for this same article in gaming sites and you can see the vitriol and crucifying he received for his comments, they are out of touch with the industry and the people spending their money.
The difference between console gaming and ios gaming is like the difference between Hollywood and some horrific day time soap. The production values are nowhere near the same, and Apple stands very little chance to sway the core audience from established platforms.
The problem is, gamers (the people who spend billions yearly in this industry) can pan it as much as they like, it won't change the fact that the current business model for the games market is increasingly shaky. With games costing hundreds of millions to make for the big games consoles, it won't be long until the whole thing becomes unsustainable, and something like iOS in the living room will be welcomed by the developers.
What will dictate the winners and losers in the games console market isn't what the gamers want, it's where the money can be made.
I'm sure gamers who want a handheld console would prefer the PS Vita over an iPhone, but I'd rather be invested in a company making games for the iPhone.
Remembering you are comparing a 2006 device to a 2011 device.
The fact that the hardware of a console stays consistant throughout it's liftspan is a massive advantage, I know the games I purchase anytime in the lifespan will work, and work at the same performance level if I get them at day one, or at day 600
You mean just like the PS3 does now? I can upgrade my PS3 and the games still work. Now will the Apple TV you talk about (or the iPhones etc) do the reverse like the PS3/XBox 360 does? AAA titles from 2013 will still work on a 2006 ps3/xbox360, will a AAA iOS game from 2013 work at the same quality/performance on an original iPhone?
They wouldn't get exclusives, they would have to pay for exclusives, and Microsoft and Sony have a lot of the major AAA titles tied up
They don't have to have the same length of compatibility. 3-4 years of compatibility would be enough, which they seem to manage already and you'd be able to resell the hardware to upgrade to the latest model same as you do with a computer.
It's better than trying to shoehorn 2013 games onto 2006 hardware.
They have some high-profile exclusives:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3929140/epic-citadel-comes-to-android-today
They might struggle to get AAA exclusive titles without paying for them but they have money. A decent AAA game can be developed for $10-20m. Apple could commission 5-10 exclusives themselves and they'd more than make their money back with over 400 million iOS users. They can charge $3 and 4-7 million copies makes a profit.
I doubt they'd even make $20m AAA games because they'd look for a 1-2 year turnaround.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson
The problem is, gamers (the people who spend billions yearly in this industry) can pan it as much as they like, it won't change the fact that the current business model for the games market is increasingly shaky. With games costing hundreds of millions to make for the big games consoles, it won't be long until the whole thing becomes unsustainable, and something like iOS in the living room will be welcomed by the developers.
What will dictate the winners and losers in the games console market isn't what the gamers want, it's where the money can be made.
I'm sure gamers who want a handheld console would prefer the PS Vita over an iPhone, but I'd rather be invested in a company making games for the iPhone.
You have stated the one truth most people are ignoring - what succeeds will be what gamers want. That principle neatly negates your first paragraph. The existing games development model exists because it delivers what a lot of gamers want, the immersive high production value A ranking games.
You might as well argue that the exiting model for the production of Hollywood style blockbuster movies is broken, It can't last. Small independent French art house style films will slip in and take over when the big studios and their huge edifice of high cost, high production value films topples into the dust under it's own unsustainable weight.
Er, no.
As with Hollywood blockbusters, the top selling games are mostly those that cost a lot to produce. Modern Warfare 2 is said to have cost between 40 and 50 million - as of January 18, 2010, it had taken over 1 billion in sales. Such a broken business model.
Most of the top games of recent times have been those with high production values like Halo 4, Assassin's Creed 3, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Far Cry 3 etc. Although a lot these games are visually impressive, they could have been a lot more so had the current console hardware not been frozen at 6 year old tech.
Arguing that the Apple TV style hardware can easily crush existing consoles is rather missing the fact that the Xbox and PS consoles are both due for replacement this year. Any hypothetical Apple TV gaming system is going to have to be competing with the new consoles, not the old. My understanding is that mobile GPUs will only get to match the current Xbox 360's GPU capabilities later this year - by which time the GPUs in the new consoles will be way ahead. I have seen an estimate of the GPU capability for the next Xbox, which touts AMD 7000 series graphics capabilities, which if true, would slightly trump iOS GPUs.
I really don't see Apple ever providing enough GPU grunt to take on the next gen consoles. Nor would they ever provide enough memory, SD, or disc based storage. Both consoles are rumoured to include Blu-ray drives. A game disc could therefore hold 50 Gb of date, which is now necessary given the scale of some modern games. Battlefield 3, Halo 4, Mass Effect 2 & 3 all come as 2 DVD disc sets.
iOS gaming is a completely different market to the one the Xbox and PS consoles cater to. Unless Apple provides hardware capable of running the A rank games, I don't see them displacing consoles, and given their liking for relatively enormous margins on their hardware, I doubt they will compete in this particular entertainment arena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Except since the Apple TV seems to be receiving a yearly update, games will be made during the standard "five year" lifecycle that the earliest Apple TVs won't be able to play.
Meaning $495 for Apple TVs to play all the games in the same timeframe that a standalone console would be able to play.
OR you're asking developers to hold their games back for the old models, which Apple never does.
Is there a big difference between buying a new gaming aTV for $200 every 2-3 years as opposed to $500 for a new XBox every 10?
App game developers already deal with a few generations of iOS devices and retina vs non-retina devices. PC game devs have had low/med/high settings for nearly forever.
I think that the A5X aTV would be a decent enough performer at $99 to kick off gaming. I think that even through Tim said he didn't want to get into the traditional console market he left room for an iPad/iPhone + aTV hybrid gaming approach to eliminate the lag seen in the current AirPlay solution.
The aTV SDK could provide iOS app devs the ability to tap the aTV for rendering, multi-iOS device coordination (including non-local iOS devices) and local BT controllers. Higher quality (aka bigger) textures could be hosted on the aTV since they would be unneeded on the iPhone/iPod Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
You have stated the one truth most people are ignoring - what succeeds will be what gamers want. That principle neatly negates your first paragraph. The existing games development model exists because it delivers what a lot of gamers want, the immersive high production value A ranking games.
I would caveat that as "what succeeds will be what game buyers want". That's actually a slightly different demographic since it removes a lot of younger games and adds quite a few parents.
As a parent I push iOS gaming hard. My kids wanted a 3DS. I said hell no. Here's an iPad. My wife looked at me like I was an idiot until I showed her the difference in game prices. Plus the iPad is useful for other things besides gaming.
Gamers may want immersive high production value AAA games. What their parents are going to be willing to buy after being exposed to $0.99 to $19.99 titles on iOS may be something else.
Plus, unless Microsoft makes the XBox Next a full fledged home server that can also run Office I'm more inclined to get a gaming rig HDTV than a console except for Kinect style games. A lot of those games are not high production value AAA games but fun social games. Something that a game enable aTV could handle.
Originally Posted by nht
Is there a big difference between buying a new gaming aTV for $200 every 2-3 years as opposed to $500 for a new XBox every 10?
Oh, are we kicking the price up even further? Yes, there's a big difference; in a year's time that Apple TV is outdated, whereas the console gets five years of assured compatibility.
Console life cycles are 5 years. If you're buying one every ten, you'd be replacing your Nintendo 64 with a Wii, for example.
I'm trying to look at it from a gamer's perspective—one who would be the "early adopter" for new consoles, buying them as soon as they're released and then their successor, etc.
The Apple TV seems like a more expensive option in that regard, even at $99, since games will be made that don't run on it after a single year.
Though if the prices of the Big Three consoles trend upward as the Wii U has been forced to, we'll see the Xbox and PlayStation 4 be something like $599 and $899…
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
I would caveat that as "what succeeds will be what game buyers want". That's actually a slightly different demographic since it removes a lot of younger games and adds quite a few parents.
As a parent I push iOS gaming hard. My kids wanted a 3DS. I said hell no. Here's an iPad. My wife looked at me like I was an idiot until I showed her the difference in game prices. Plus the iPad is useful for other things besides gaming.
Gamers may want immersive high production value AAA games. What their parents are going to be willing to buy after being exposed to $0.99 to $19.99 titles on iOS may be something else.
Plus, unless Microsoft makes the XBox Next a full fledged home server that can also run Office I'm more inclined to get a gaming rig HDTV than a console except for Kinect style games. A lot of those games are not high production value AAA games but fun social games. Something that a game enable aTV could handle.
As a parent, I tend to get my children the games they want. While my daughter is satisfied with some iOS games, my son would not be, and there are many Xbox games my daughter enjoys as well.
I therefore buy xbox games mostly.
So while there obviously are parents who will push iOS, there are obviously those who won't.
I don't think you can compare the A ranked game market with the sort that will run on iOS. I think they are different markets and the guy whinging about the xbox is a self confessed iOS developer. His whole piece is predicated on his wish he could tap into the xBox as a small developer and cash in. He can't at the moment so he's venting his displeasure and tossing toys out of the pram and predicting the demise of consoles at the hand of A TV style devices. He's entitled to his view, but I really don't see the demand for A ranked games going away or of A TV being upgraded to the point it could run even the current ones, let alone the next generation ones. For a taste of the next generation of A ranked games, I think you want to be looking at Crysis 3 performance on a gaming PC. There is not the slightest chance of Apple providing any hardware that could run that with the developers spec in hardware. A Mac Pro is the only hardware Apple makes with a good enough GPU to run crysis 3, and you would need the HD 5870 card option at $200 to achieve the recommended level of performance.
If apple is smart, they will use some of those billions to hire a couple hundred employees to make this happen. They need:
Apple Television (high-end, simple to use, ideally with a-la-carte programming)
Apple TV thingy with the ability to run apps
Bluetooth game controller
Move on this asap apple... or you risk losing out if the rest of the industry gets their shit together.
Originally Posted by vqro
…apple… …need[s]…
Here we go again.
Apple Television (high-end, simple to use, ideally with a-la-carte programming)
Apple TV thingy with the ability to run apps
Bluetooth game controller
Why do they need a TV. Why do they need a controller. Why do they need to hurry. History shows the opposite works out for them.
So the box doesn't have the programming? Why is it called Apple TV, then? So the television can't run apps? How does that solve any problems with modern TV? They already have controllers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, are we kicking the price up even further? Yes, there's a big difference; in a year's time that Apple TV is outdated, whereas the console gets five years of assured compatibility.
Console life cycles are 5 years. If you're buying one every ten, you'd be replacing your Nintendo 64 with a Wii, for example.
The XBox 360 was launched on May 2005. It's Feb 2013. The launch announcement is expected in June. That's 8 years. I was saying 10 to be nice. $500 every 7-8 years is more money during the console lifecycle.
Did I bump the price up? Sure. A BT controller, more RAM, more flash, etc and $199 seems reasonable. Maybe $149.
Quote:
The Apple TV seems like a more expensive option in that regard, even at $99, since games will be made that don't run on it after a single year.
$99 every year vs $500 every 5 years is the same cost.
My iPad 1 had a 2-3 year useful life gaming not 1. Heck, IB2 runs on the iPad 1. Only apps that require iOS 6+ won't run.
I expect the iPad 4 to be good at least 2-3 years.
Is it going to be the same as the Xbox next or PS4? Nope. Does it have to be? Not at $99. Or even $199.
A $99 aTV won't ever have the horsepower to beat a console. The question is whether two iphones/ipads and an aTV can give you lag free, high quality gaming for the less demanding genres?
Originally Posted by nht
The XBox 360 was launched on May 2005. It's Feb 2013. The launch announcement is expected in June. That's 8 years.
Right, I'm just going off of past cycles, to which Nintendo, at least, is still adhering. Sony says the PS3 will be their machine until 2018. Good luck with that.
$99 every year vs $500 every 5 years is the same cost.
But consoles have historically been meaningfully less than $500.
My iPad 1 had a 2-3 year useful life gaming not 1. Heck, IB2 runs on the iPad 1. Only apps that require iOS 6+ won't run.
Right, right! But still, there are games optimized for newer iPads that literally STUTTER on the first-gen. That one new space game comes to mind… there's an HD version and a regular version; they specifically say "don't get the HD version if you have the first-gen iPad", but why would you even make it available to that model if you know it's going to stutter?!
Is it going to be the same as the Xbox next or PS4? Nope. Does it have to be? Not at $99. Or even $199.
I think you've hit it on the nose. A dedicated iOS device for gaming will be catering to casual gamers (read: nearly everyone that plays video games) rather than self-designated "hardcore" gamers. Except the Apple gaming device will give dedicated gaming rigs and consoles a run for their money graphically, while still having the quality (and, of course, not) stories and gameplay afforded to games across the spectrum.
Many "hardcore" gamers just play first person shoot-em-ups. You know, the games that are the exact same every year, rereleased? And many "casual" games are some of the most innovative. We've already seen great stuff, both graphically and in gameplay, come out of iOS, even as a handheld trio. Console manufacturers are right to worry about the future. Even without dedicated TV-based hardware, since AirPlay!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
For a taste of the next generation of A ranked games, I think you want to be looking at Crysis 3 performance on a gaming PC. There is not the slightest chance of Apple providing any hardware that could run that with the developers spec in hardware. A Mac Pro is the only hardware Apple makes with a good enough GPU to run crysis 3, and you would need the HD 5870 card option at $200 to achieve the recommended level of performance.
There are guys running Crysis 3 beta on 2011 iMacs.
So run Crysis 3? Absolutely.
The current mid grade 27" iMac ($1999+) with the GTX 675MX meets or exceeds the recommended specs.
The statement that the mac pro is the only mac that can meet recommended specs for Crysis 3 is wrong.
The top end 27" iMac ($2400+) mostly meets the high end recommended specs. The GTX 680MX is an underclocked GTX 680 so with the 3.4 Ghz quad i7 it's pretty close.
Run with all settings maxed? Meh. Few PC gamers have rigs that can do that either.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Minimum system requirements for PC
Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
DirectX 11 graphics card with 1Gb Video RAM
Dual core CPU
2GB Memory (3GB on Vista)
Nvidia/Intel example setup: Nvidia GTS 450, Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (E6600)
AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD5770, AMD Athlon64 X2 2.7 Ghz (5200+)
Recommended system requirements for PC
Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
DirectX 11 graphics card with 1GB Video RAM
Quad core CPU
4GB Memory
Nvidia/Intel example setup: Nvidia GTX 560, Intel Core i3-530
AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD5870, AMD Phenom II X2 565
Hi-performance system requirements for PC
Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 •
Latest DirectX 11 graphics card •
Latest quad core CPU
8GB Memory
Nvidia/Intel example setup: NVidia GTX 680, Intel Core i7-2600k
AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD7970, AMD Bulldozer FX4150
Quote:
There are guys running Crysis 3 beta on 2011 iMacs.
Running On window 7 64bits Ultimate in bootcamp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOuntTXCLJs
Would ATV be able to do the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
Running On window 7 64bits Ultimate in bootcamp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOuntTXCLJs
Would ATV be able to do the same?
Heck no.
For $99 you wouldn't expect it to either. I think the A5X makes it a bit faster than the Wii though and given Infinity Blade 2 you can do pretty nice graphics on it.
A 32GB iPad mini costs $700, a PS3 costs $400, a gaming "aTV" would cost a lot more than the $150 they sell for now. I don't want to have to replace my console every 3-4 years, that is the advantage of the console.
Is it? I would say the consumer might disagree
That is a single game from a single developer. Was it a developer choice or Apple paying them? How do they get on with games like Killzone, LBP, Drakes Fortune, Halo, Ratchet & Clank etc?
I am not saying that Apple can't/won't do well at this, causal gaming is big, but the AAA exclusives will be harder to break into, you either have to pay a lot, or risk stepping on someones IP toes
Actually it takes a few years before developers understand how to take full advantage of the hardware. Change the hardware more often and they'll forever be behind the learning curve.
I don't see how Angry Birds on 99$ Apple TV can kill PS3/XBOX FPS games so it's rather fanboy's wishful thinking. But iPad for sure scored kill on handheld devices from Sony and Nintendo.
Ridiculous analogies.
The founder of xBox probably knows a bit about the game console market.
It's obviously just his opinion and could easily be wrong, but that's nothing like your silly comments.
He's probably referring to Apple allowing iPad apps to run on the box --- which isn't too big a project for Apple. They should have done this by now IMO.
My XBox has a 40 gig hard drive. Other than the graphics -- it doesn't have too much about it that is any stretch for even the most basic PC. If Apple just expanded some capabilities to the iOS development platform -- it would have a very capable environment for games and an army of developers.
Microsoft is already moving this direction and will probably make porting from XBox to the Surface a fairly easy process (in theory). However, going from a resource rich high powered environment to a lower spec is a lot more work than going the other direction.
If anything, I'm thinking the XBox cofounder is referring to that last point; right now, Microsoft has merely a toe-hold in the "portable" game market. Apple has the lions share. You can get a thousand fun little games on iOS for nothing or a $1 -- and that has to be killing the Nintendo hand-held gaming market.It's really Apple's game to lose.