Apple TV to dual as casual gaming device

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 63
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Whereas casual gaming has lots of lovely growth potential. And the Apple TV model means every dollar goes to Apple. Not EA. Not Wallmart. Not Valve.



    They still have to pay the developer of the games. There's no word on whether the games are designed as a profit maker for Apple like their hardware, or if it is just a carrot to entice hardware buying, like the rest of the iTunes store is designed to be, and probably much of Apple's software seems to be.
  • Reply 42 of 63
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    We've all known that Apple was going to allow the AppleTV to play games, the question is how this will be achieved:



    1) WiFi, Infrared or USB?

    WiFi is the most logical choice.


    2) iPod-like clickwheel or typical Apple remote?

    I'm guessing Apple will include the typical, infrared Apple remote for typical AppleTV customers but will offer a clickwheel based, WiFI remote for an additional $24.99 for playing games with the AppleTV. It will also work for typical AppleTV operations.


    3) Will Apple also let you play these games via your Mac?

    My guess is 'nope'.



    Why would you need a WiFi remote, its a bit overkill for the data that you need to transmit isnt it? BlueTooth, RF, or IR would seem the more logical choices unless you are going to make the controller a more robust device than a simple remote.
  • Reply 43 of 63
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JCG View Post


    Why would you need a WiFi remote, its a bit overkill for the data that you need to transmit isnt it? BlueTooth, RF, or IR would seem the more logical choices unless you are going to make the controller a more robust device than a simple remote.



    If it's a game controller, then WiFi isn't necessarily overkill, I think many of the wireless game controllers use WiFi. IR would be a bad choice for a game controller. AppleTV has these two. For RF or Bluetooth, Apple isn't claiming they have either in AppleTV. I don't think they've said what they are doing with the USB port, but I think using that for a wireless receiver dongle would be pretty odd.
  • Reply 44 of 63
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JCG View Post


    Why would you need a WiFi remote, its a bit overkill for the data that you need to transmit isnt it? BlueTooth, RF, or IR would seem the more logical choices unless you are going to make the controller a more robust device than a simple remote.

    • Infrared would offer too much delay. Did you know: The first Nintendo prototype had wireless, infrared controllers.

    • Bluetooth (like the Nintendo Wii controllers) would be fine but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that AppleTV will have Bluetooth.

    • 802.11b is small, cheap and uses low enough power to work well as a game controller.

  • Reply 45 of 63
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    If it's a game controller, then WiFi isn't necessarily overkill, I think many of the wireless game controllers use WiFi. IR would be a bad choice for a game controller. AppleTV has these two. For RF or Bluetooth, Apple isn't claiming they have either in AppleTV. I don't think they've said what they are doing with the USB port, but I think using that for a wireless receiver dongle would be pretty odd.



    If I recall correctly, the initial Tech Specs page for the AppleTV made no direct mention of IR despite the listing of a typical Apple remote; however, now they do list an IR receiver on the page.
  • Reply 46 of 63
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    They still have to pay the developer of the games. There's no word on whether the games are designed as a profit maker for Apple like their hardware, or if it is just a carrot to entice hardware buying, like the rest of the iTunes store is designed to be, and probably much of Apple's software seems to be.



    Since Apple isn't having to cash in from hardware losses the games will be reasonably priced. They will still make a profit, but nothing exuberant like from console or PC games. I think that Apple will keep the current pricing for simple games (the ones currently sold at iTS) and will also have more complex games at a higher, standard price down the road.



    I love how Apple is competing with so many companies these days without directly competing with them. These MMORPGs (I had to look up the correct initialism) are just too much for me to wrap my head around and are way to much of a commitment for me to learn. Obvoisuly, I'm not a gamer but I will have no problem spending $5 or $10 for a simple game that I can learn in 60 seconds and play with my family and friends.
  • Reply 47 of 63
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,073member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    These MMORPGs (I had to look up the correct initialism) are just too much for me to wrap my head around and are way to much of a commitment for me to learn.



    World of Warcraft is monkey crack - if you try it you will like it, guaranteed.
  • Reply 48 of 63
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,338member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wgary View Post


    People will verb just about anything these days, it makes me SICK!



    But, it's so fun when they do it.
  • Reply 49 of 63
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    World of Warcraft is monkey crack - if you try it you will like it, guaranteed.



    I believe you, which is why I will never even sign up for a free trial. I don't have enough time in my day as it is.
  • Reply 50 of 63
    gregalexandergregalexander Posts: 1,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    .... cannot be played on THIS Apple TV.



    Interesting that they didn't say ".... cannot be played on THE Apple TV".



    (yes, I know, it's obvious that other Apple TVs will come out).
  • Reply 51 of 63
    caliminiuscaliminius Posts: 944member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    The Hardcore gaming market is dead. Well, not dead, but there's no more juice left in it to squeeze. They spend all their cash on $700 glorified DVD players and $60 games.



    Whereas casual gaming has lots of lovely growth potential. And the Apple TV model means every dollar goes to Apple. Not EA. Not Wallmart. Not Valve.



    C.



    No offense, but they probably said the same thing when a little think known as the Playstation came out. It preceeded to basically take Sega and Nintendo out of the game console equation. Nintendo might finally be recovering with the Wii (assuming the novelty doesn't wear thing and worthwhile games keep coming), but Sega dropped out of the race completely. Doesn't seem unreasonable that someone else could come out with a console that would do the same to the Playstation.



    Also, how does every dollar go to Apple? If EA puts one of their games on the AppleTV (like they've done for the iPod), they're going to get a piece of that pie. Unless Apple suddenly shocks us all and starts churning out games, it will primarily be third party games. Even look at the iPod. What has Apple managed to produce? A Blockout/Arkanoid clone and a Poker game. Neither would be considered terribly innovative.



    And really, how would Apple be hurt if they sold a "$700 glorified DVD player" that also played games? Right now, the AppleTV is a $300 glorified DVD player that requires content be purchased exclusively from iTunes (I'm excluded ripping DVD's because that's not something the layman is really going to be doing and is also in the gray area of legality) along with a widescreen TV and broadband internet connection. I know I paid a premium on the iMac I own because of the Apple logo on it. Sure, I got the iLife apps and a built-in camera, but I've used that about zero time. I love my iMac, but I'm also not delusional about it.
  • Reply 52 of 63
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Boukman View Post


    I know this story is about games, but what I really wonder is if Apple will decide to create the online movie rental business.



    It looks to me like the Apple TV is the ideal platform for this. I know people think that you need to have a lot of bandwith to be able to download movies, but I believe the business model might be a cross between Netflix and video on demand: you choose which movies you want to see in the next couple of days; Apple TV downloads them for you, in the order you chose them, up to a limit of maybe 5 movies, and stores them on its hard drive for you to view them; and when you're done watching and rewatching a movie, you delete it, allowing Apple TV to start downloading the next movie in your queue. In this fashion, the Apple TV could actually take quite a longer time to download a movie then the length of the movie itself, making it feasable even with an average DSL or cable connection, as long as you have unlimited download. It would probably be faster than Netflix, but not quite as instantaneous as video on demand.



    Besides, I think people actually rent many more movies than they buy, so the rental model makes much more sense here than for music.



    What do you think? Is this a reasonnable business model? Do you think it could work?





    I think this makes a lot of sense. I think Apple was correct about owning music, not renting it, but I think movies are VERY VERY different.



    Unless Apple has a rental model, I am not interested in iTV for movies. Subscription service would be great, but I'd settle for a $1.99/movie with a 7 day time limit, no problem. I'd also be willing to do a monthly subscription that would be equal to $1/movie per month. So $10/month would let me rent 10 movies a month. Maybe having the monthly subscription start at $10/month. I'm not willing to spend more than $1.99 for on-line only content.
  • Reply 53 of 63
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,579member
    A possibly iPhone/Apple TV related article...



    http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6164823.html
  • Reply 54 of 63
    zandroszandros Posts: 537member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post
    • 802.11b is small, cheap and uses low enough power (like the Nintendo Wii controllers) to work well as a game controller.




    Interesting, because the Wii controllers use both bluetooth and IR to interface with the console.
  • Reply 55 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post


    Well, wait...for...it.....

    You could use the iPhone as the aTV iRemote

    - built-in Wifi!

    - built-in Acclerometer!

    - just the right size for a bat or racket!

    - nice, shiny, curvey edges so it slips out of your hand easily!





    Man, these Apple guys plan ahead!





    \



    I know, I know... They really do plan ahead... Those are ALL pluses... Because:

    Scenario A. Clueless consumer goes and buys an iPhone and uses it with the iTV gets into the ball game and gets an iPhone Home Run. Clueless consumer either A. buys new iPhone jacking up Apple sales, or B. follows scenario B.



    Scenario B. Prudent consumer goes and buys skins for the iPhone with a rubberized grip for game playing... Since they are more 'substantial' than other skins they cost more helping the iPod/iPhone Apple affilliates.
  • Reply 56 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    And really, how would Apple be hurt if they sold a "$700 glorified DVD player" that also played games? Right now, the AppleTV is a $300 glorified DVD player that requires content be purchased exclusively from iTunes (I'm excluded ripping DVD's because that's not something the layman is really going to be doing and is also in the gray area of legality) along with a widescreen TV and broadband internet connection. I know I paid a premium on the iMac I own because of the Apple logo on it. Sure, I got the iLife apps and a built-in camera, but I've used that about zero time. I love my iMac, but I'm also not delusional about it.



    Premium? I found it less to get the iMac then buy a comperable PC... Building your own aside, of course...
  • Reply 57 of 63
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zandros View Post


    Interesting, because the Wii controllers use both bluetooth and IR to interface with the console.



    I did mean Bluetooth.
  • Reply 58 of 63
    wgarywgary Posts: 2member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Yes, it sicks me too!



    NIIICE! Clearly I need to grow my understanding of verbing. I can opportunize many more words.
  • Reply 59 of 63
    Unboxing photos of new "retro" Apple joyStick.!!! OMG!!





    only $99 each!
  • Reply 60 of 63
    I guess it's obvious that the iPhone would be able to play games, but here're some more strings from iTunes



    http://www.hardmac.com/news/2007-03-06/#6499



    "4301.161" = "Are you sure you want to sync games? All existing games on the mobile phone ?^1? will be replaced with games from this iTunes library.";

    "4301.162" = "Are you sure you do not want to sync games? All existing games on the mobile phone ?^1? will be removed.";

    "4301.163" = "Syncing games on ?^1??";

    "4309.126" = "Songs cannot be added to ?^1? because all of its space has been reserved for data.";

    "4309.127" = "Syncing contacts on ?^1??";

    "4309.128" = "Syncing calendars on ?^1??";

    "4309.145" = "The Apple TV ?^1? is synced with contacts and calendars on another computer. Do you want to sync with this computer and replace all existing contacts and calendars on this Apple TV with those from this computer?";



    Not sure what video processor the iPhone uses, but if it used one of the nVidia mobile chips it should be pretty good for games too.
Sign In or Register to comment.