No it doesn't. I really don't think you play many games. There are different kinds of controllers for different games. For the racing games, as I mentioned, it does make a fine controller now. In fact, the standard console controllers make terrible controllers for racing games. There are all kinds of controllers, some of those for racing cost hundreds of dollars. Do you need that? No, but people buy them.
I play, and have played tons of games, I've played Tomb Raider, Syphon Filter, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Max Payne, Halo, Gears of War, Devil May Cry, God of War, and many others spanning some 20 years. They all had complicated controls that cannot be done with a touch screen device.
What people quickly forget is that the iPad's CPU/GPU is clocked for battery life. If they wanted to make something 10 more powerful, they would just need to stick 10 of them together on one die.
That however wouldn't create a platform on par with the PS4, because game developers are still developing software like there is only a SINGLE CPU and SINGLE CORE available. In the last decade, you will not find a game that works better because you stick a better CPU in, only games that work substantially better if you replace the 99$ GPU with the 599$ one.
Where Apple has a "open" door into this market is with the iOS games on the iPad already. Sell the next AppleTV with a standard "dual analog controller with 12 buttons" and you might actually see it take off as a gaming platform, have the same controller be able to be used on the iPad (eg multiple-pairings over bluetooth) and we might have a winner.
Personally I hate "wireless" controllers. I also hate wireless keyboards and wireless mice. All because they have so much latency that it feels like I'm having to second guess how I play a game.
Anyhow, allowing "Controller-enabled" iOS games to work on an AppleTV would likely make such a thing a viable gaming platform even if nothing else changes.
And that makes the nVidia Shield is more of a "Chromecast" than a game console. As much as developers keep making it so you can "stream" from your 5000$ expensive gaming machine to a 200$ toy... what is the damn point when you can just play the game on the gaming rig? It's like everyone saw what Nintendo was doing and completely missed the point that JAPANESE HOMES ARE TINY AND DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE TV's.
The nVidia Grid service is potentially interesting, but until everyone has FTTH, it's stillborn. Nobody wants to play a high-end game with the visual quality of Youtube circa 2005 and the latency of streaming.
Where are you getting this information from? Games have been programmed for multiple cores for some time. This is like a discussion from time gone by.
But 10 3 core SoCs? No way. Very little software uses more than four cores. And you wouldn't get 10 times the performance, you would get something like 7 times the performance.
You're a,so talking as though the CPU doesn't matter. It does. Without the CPU being able to feed the GPU at the correct rate, the GPU sits doing nothing. You also need a very fast memory bus.
If you hate wireless controllers, then you must hate every gaming system that's been out for the last 10 years. Wireless is the way things have been goi g for a decade, and that's how they will continue to go. No one else seems to have problems with lTency. If they did, it would be a big story in all the gaming sites, and both Microsoft and Sony would have major problems. It isn't, and they don't.
I play, and have played tons of games, I've played Tomb Raider, Syphon Filter, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Max Payne, Halo, Gears of War, Devil May Cry, God of War, and many others spanning some 20 years. They all had complicated controls that cannot be done with a touch screen device.
It doesn't read like you do. There are differing controllers for racing games, air battle games, and so on. Wireless motion controllers work very well for many games. I'm not saying that the iphone, or iTouch is an ideal shape for this. But I'm doing it, and it works just fine for those games for which a 3D controller is designed. One major point to this is the cost of controllers. If you can use your phone, you MAY not need to buy a controller for a while, or not at all. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
And you're ignoring g that developers may very design more games for which this might work well. The fact that they haven't, so far, is because not many people are using the Tv screen and using their phone at the same time. Right now, for many games it is awkward, because there are no good controls written for the phone. That doesn't mean that there won't be.
No it doesn't. I really don't think you play many games. There are different kinds of controllers for different games. For the racing games, as I mentioned, it does make a fine controller now. In fact, the standard console controllers make terrible controllers for racing games. There are all kinds of controllers, some of those for racing cost hundreds of dollars. Do you need that? No, but people buy them.
Really? An iPhone makes a "fine" controller for racing games with its tiny form factor, not very grippable design, and absence of buttons? Better than the "terrible" Dual Shock 3 with Sixaxis and analogue triggers, or the Wii Remote?
Really? An iPhone makes a "fine" controller for racing games with its tiny form factor, not very grippable design, and absence of buttons? Better than the "terrible" Dual Shock 3 with Sixaxis and analogue triggers, or the Wii Remote?
I don't see it. Not at all.
Isn't the iPhone an expensive controller? the cheapest iPhone 6 is almost twice the price of a PS4
Really? An iPhone makes a "fine" controller for racing games with its tiny form factor, not very grippable design, and absence of buttons? Better than the "terrible" Dual Shock 3 with Sixaxis and analogue triggers, or the Wii Remote?
I don't see it. Not at all.
I have played, or rather tried to play, a number of games on my TV through mirroring the iPhone to the ATV and using the phone as controller.
Even for the simpler games, eg a racing game where the gyro if the phone is used for steering, accelerating and breaking, this was less than pleasant.
I gave up quickly.
Ok, partly due to the lag caused by the video streaming, partly by the frequent loss of connection, but mainly simply because it just didn't provide the right feel.
I'm a casual gamer, I have to add.
An Apple TV more power than ps4 along with cable pass through would basically eliminate the need for anyone to have anything else.
iPads are already on level of PS3 but games are still trailing behind, on average.
Hardware power is just the beginning. Investment in software development is part of equation that isn't solved yet, imho. Exclusive developers for both Sony and MS are pampered, shoveled with money and relaxed in terms of deadlines. They are illiterately thoroughbred to be creators of each console showcases.
GT5, for example, had around $60 million budget and it took 5 years to develop, if not more. Frankly the game was not as good as one could expect from these numbers, but it was still easily the largest driving game ever created - with 1200 cars, over 50 tracks etc. It also came on BD disk with over 25GB of data on it, if memory serves.
Sony (and MS) can indulge in projects like this because, historically, GT franchise sold around 70 million copies, and if we presume that games took $30 on average (some purchased at full price, some purchased later after price drop), that is over $2 billion. It is easy to budget $60 million when franchise has already rewarded you this much.
But this takes us to other problems. Console gamers are willing to pay full price for the game. How many Android/iOS phone and tablet users are also willing to shed $60 for a premium game? And how do you distribute game 20GB heavy to system with limited flash memory?
I'm not saying that problems are impossible to overcome, but I am saying that improving hardware performance alone isn't enough - whole platform must be more game-centric. From AAA developers, through full price games, to sustainable delivery and management of purchased content.
Yeah, but the 3DS has sold poorly when compared to the DS generation. In fact, sales have been half, and dropping. Old players don't o,at newer games, and newer players don't play a lot of old games, so they a lot like console generations. Old players aren't that viable today. The question is how many players are being used now, and how many people using them are still buying games.
It's interesting that for a good five years now, in their financial reports, Nintendo has stated that their biggest competitor is Apple, not Microsoft or Sony. Given that, it's criminal that they have been so stubborn that they couldn't see all of their problems coming. The iPhone, and I suppose, Android phones, have destroyed their mobile franchise. So early this year, they announced the licensing program for characters for iOS and Android, and more recently have given hints that they themselves will, at some point, have games for iOS, and maybe Android,
Better than nothing, but years too late. I understand that more money is made off hardware than software, in the sense that hardware is much more expensive. But reality must intrude sometime.
I know. But I think it is primarily crisis of the platform that smartphones and tablets are taking advantage of, rather than smartphones and tablets creating that crisis on their own.
Problem with portable consoles - the way I see it - is that, on one side, they cannot provide experience of desktop consoles (and gaming PC) - limited storage, weak hardware, small and low-res screens... and as gaming population gets older and older on average, carrying game console in the pocket is getting less and less appealing. Still attractive for kids, but as home consoles are quite common nowadays, I think many parents will decide not to indulge kids with another console, retreating to "have a quick game on my smartphone" if they really desperately need distraction for kids in car or shopping mall.
This based mostly on my and my friends experience. Back in the days I god PSP out of curiosity, and while I did take it with me on travels, I felt uncomfortable to game in public while waiting for my wife to do shopping. Gaming on smartphone came up much easier because it is phone, something that so many have with them anyway... portable console in public was just too... nerdy? I don't know. It just wasn't comfortable. I'm still planing to get Vita as I have piled up decent library of free Vita games through PSN+, but for sure I will not game on it in public. I'm mostly curious to try what device is capable of.
In addition, Nintendo isn't pushing margins too much - their hardware is usually weaker than competition, even if competition is already nowhere to levels of desktop gaming. Other issue Nintendo has is lack of new exclusive franchises - save for Splatoon (which is not portable game anyway), what 3Ds gets are mostly improved (?) versions of franchises that already go for ever and have lost a lot of freshness - again, my opinion. They did bet hard on glass-less 3D but those gadgets have history of hits or fails - motion controller on Wii was success, Wii U controller with secondary screen simply didn't materialize.
All in all, I think that mobile consoles are in decline on their own. Smart devices are taking advantage and, in process, helping that decline, but I think 3Ds, Vita... would not be much more successful even if smartphones were not getting this proficient in gaming potential.
iOS is a gaming platform for casuals. TV Consoles are for mainstream gamers. Unless Apple TV has some quad-core setup with 1TB of storage. Gamers won't be giving up their TV consoles yet. Not to mention content is the biggest draw to TV consoles. Nintendo's own IP portfolio surpasses all others game IPs in the industry. These articles are once again articles point to unsubstantiated facts. The iPhone/iPad platform stands a better chance to take over the mobile gaming industry than the mainstream console biz.
The article failed to mention the biggest gaming platform i still Windows. Some 2 billion PCs out there are actively gaming PCs.
Ok then, it is already paid for and doesn't cost you any extra. Note that if someone gives you their old iPhone it is free for you!
Remember, this is Apple, if someone "gives" you their iPhone, it will be an real old one, and won't be supported.
Ok, let's say I don't have an iPhone (I don't actually, so that part is ok). New Apple TV comes out, Apple says get an iPhone as a controller, so I spend maybe NZ$114 on the ATV (based on todays prices), then another $1000+ buying a controller? Plus another $1000 for everyone else that wants to use it?
Remember, this is Apple, if someone "gives" you their iPhone, it will be an real old one, and won't be supported.
Ok, let's say I don't have an iPhone (I don't actually, so that part is ok). New Apple TV comes out, Apple says get an iPhone as a controller, so I spend maybe NZ$114 on the ATV (based on todays prices), then another $1000+ buying a controller? Plus another $1000 for everyone else that wants to use it?
Hopefully you see the issue there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN
True but if you already own an iPhone your controller is free. Include a basic controller but also allow iDevices as controllers.
iOS is a gaming platform for casuals. TV Consoles are for mainstream gamers. Unless Apple TV has some quad-core setup with 1TB of storage. Gamers won't be giving up their TV consoles yet. Not to mention content is the biggest draw to TV consoles. Nintendo's own IP portfolio surpasses all others game IPs in the industry. These articles are once again articles point to unsubstantiated facts. The iPhone/iPad platform stands a better chance to take over the mobile gaming industry than the mainstream console biz.
The article failed to mention the biggest gaming platform i still Windows. Some 2 billion PCs out there are actively gaming PCs.
There are likely around 2 billion PCs in use but are not all used for gaming. Steam has 125 million active accounts so that's a closer estimate. If you look at EA, Ubisoft, Take-Two and Activision's 2015 financials:
EA: PS4/XBO=$1.5b, PS3/360=$1.5b, Nintendo etc=$21m (this looks wrong but that's what's in their report), PC/browser=$878m, Mobile=$504m (EA owns popular mobile game franchises)
Activision: PS4/XBO/WiiU=$720m, PS3/360/Wii=$1.4b, PC=$551m, Online=$876m (World of Warcraft etc), Mobile&other=$433m (this includes toy sales)
Ubisoft: PS4/XBO=728m euros, PS3/360=364m euros, Nintendo=70m euros, PC=168m euros
Take-Two: revenue by all consoles=$880m, PC=$203m
By revenue, the PC is lagging behind the combined consoles. Against individual consoles, it's doing well.
These revenues come from game sales that are about $40-60 and also some subscription games. Call of Duty has made Activision $11b in 11 years so is a $1b/year franchise. World of Warcraft is close to this, as is Battlefield. These companies have a handful of core franchises that generate massive revenues. They pump almost all of it back into new games so net profits are low.
The mobile landscape is a bit like this. EA has bought some of the companies with the biggest franchises. Apple paid out around $10b in 2014 and EA alone was likely paid about $300m. Candy Crush would get about $0.8-1b. The top 10-20 games will take over half the App Store earnings. A few big franchises make the most money. The biggest mobile franchises are heavily touch games so the ?TV model would be different and the way mobile games make money is with IAPs and ads, which would have to work on a TV setup.
If a game like Mario Kart was available for the ?TV, would people spend $38 on it:
I don't think it would have to be free-to-play but it would have to be a mix of guaranteed revenue from up-front sales with in-app purchases or DLCs. This is a tricky thing to pull off because people don't like to pay up-front and in-game, it makes people feel like they've been sold only part of a game disingenuously and are then being milked for the rest of it. I think if it's made clear at the time of purchase what's included and what the upgrades are then it's not so bad. They could have a $5 game with $0.99 each for track packs and vehicle packs. If the store is left open for poor quality apps to get in then it lowers buyer expectations for quality and willingness to pay high prices.
When you think about gaming on iOS just now, Apple is paying out $10b to developers per year so overall revenue is ~$14b and this is with an install base of well over 400 million, the ?TV base of 25 million where a smaller portion would be gaming than on iOS is unlikely to make much of the $34b or whatever revenue goes into PC and console gaming. If it even monetizes at the same rate as iOS, the revenue would be $875m and the revenue portion for Apple would be just over $260m.
It's a nice feature to have though and a selling point for the box itself, which makes money. Nintendo makes most of their money from hardware. If good developers can find a payment model to make it financially viable then it will satisfy a decent sized audience. AAA development isn't producing enough quality titles quickly enough. You can go a whole year now and only find a handful of games worth playing. Something between mobile and console would be nice.
The next Hitman game looks like it will go this route where it won't just be a standalone game but an ongoing service where they add levels and missions. This model could work quite well and it helps with the development time. In narrative games it can break up the story too much but as long as they don't take too long between portions then it's ok. It also limits the damage if they make a flop because they've only spent staff time on the first portion.
Developers should really aim to match the movie industry where they can turn a finished product round in about a year. 3 year development times are just too long to wait for a single game.
Remember, this is Apple, if someone "gives" you their iPhone, it will be an real old one, and won't be supported.
Ok, let's say I don't have an iPhone (I don't actually, so that part is ok). New Apple TV comes out, Apple says get an iPhone as a controller, so I spend maybe NZ$114 on the ATV (based on todays prices), then another $1000+ buying a controller? Plus another $1000 for everyone else that wants to use it?
Hopefully you see the issue there?
Now you are being absurd. Do you really think that a) none of your friends will have a top of the line iPhone, b) that each of your friends would buy a top of the line iPhone, and c) that Apple would not also release lower-priced controller only devices? At worst you could buy a current version iPod touch. More likely you would be able to use the previous generation iPod touch or any iDevice that supports the next iOS release and, unlike most Android devices, Apple supports their devices with operating system updates for years after their introduction.
Now you are being absurd. Do you really think that a) none of your friends will have a top of the line iPhone, b) that each of your friends would buy a top of the line iPhone, and c) that Apple would not also release lower-priced controller only devices? At worst you could buy a current version iPod touch. More likely you would be able to use the previous generation iPod touch or any iDevice that supports the next iOS release and, unlike most Android devices, Apple supports their devices with operating system updates for years after their introduction.
Of the people I know with iPhones, none of them would come around to play video games.
And the cheapest iPod Touch is NZ$349, you expect me to pay three times more for a controller than the damn console costs? And that is the crappy 16Gb version, get a 32Gb one and you could buy a PS4 for the same price. And they are a personal item, you need to get multiple ones otherwise how do you play games if someone else is using it?
Funny, the iPod touch my mother has isn't that old, and it isn't supported for any updates anymore. Why bring up Android, what has Android got to do with people suggesting to used a iPhone as a controller for games console? They need to supply a physical controller, and have these available for purchase as additional units, otherwise you have a limited customer base of people that own iPhones.
Now, where you should be pushing this idea, is something Sony came up with, and has really failed to achieve. Use the iPod, iPad, iPhone as a second screen, play a racing game, using the iPod as the wing mirror etc
Of the people I know with iPhones, none of them would come around to play video games.
And the cheapest iPod Touch is NZ$349, you expect me to pay three times more for a controller than the damn console costs? And that is the crappy 16Gb version, get a 32Gb one and you could buy a PS4 for the same price. And they are a personal item, you need to get multiple ones otherwise how do you play games if someone else is using it?
Funny, the iPod touch my mother has isn't that old, and it isn't supported for any updates anymore. Why bring up Android, what has Android got to do with people suggesting to used a iPhone as a controller for games console? They need to supply a physical controller, and have these available for purchase as additional units, otherwise you have a limited customer base of people that own iPhones.
Now, where you should be pushing this idea, is something Sony came up with, and has really failed to achieve. Use the iPod, iPad, iPhone as a second screen, play a racing game, using the iPod as the wing mirror etc
First of all, you ignore the fact that the new AppleTV will come with a controller according to rumor reports. Second, considering that the reported package price for the Apple TV and controller is US$149, there is no way additional controllers will be more than that price. If additional controllers are priced higher than that, just buy additional Apple TV packages and use the included controller.
All this is speculation until September 9th so there is no need to worry until that time. Your worries won't change what is announced.
That said, I had a great time when I visited NZ 22 years ago. I brought a new mountain bike and biked around the country for six weeks. I didn't know until a few years ago that I had relatives in Wellington. I could have hit them up for a place to stay when I passed through! This was pre-Internet and the travel books I ordered from my local bookstore never arrived so I had no idea what to expect in terms of weather, distances, or places to see. Fortunately this was also before all the ongoing terrorism so things were more lax and I got the attention of several of the stewardesses on the long flight and we came up with a lot of ideas. Bottom line is that the trip was a lot of fun.
First of all, you ignore the fact that the new AppleTV will come with a controller according to rumor reports. Second, considering that the reported package price for the Apple TV and controller is US$149, there is no way additional controllers will be more than that price. If additional controllers are priced higher than that, just buy additional Apple TV packages and use the included controller..
Reported? I didn't think Apple had reported anything yet?
Comments
I play, and have played tons of games, I've played Tomb Raider, Syphon Filter, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Max Payne, Halo, Gears of War, Devil May Cry, God of War, and many others spanning some 20 years. They all had complicated controls that cannot be done with a touch screen device.
Where are you getting this information from? Games have been programmed for multiple cores for some time. This is like a discussion from time gone by.
But 10 3 core SoCs? No way. Very little software uses more than four cores. And you wouldn't get 10 times the performance, you would get something like 7 times the performance.
You're a,so talking as though the CPU doesn't matter. It does. Without the CPU being able to feed the GPU at the correct rate, the GPU sits doing nothing. You also need a very fast memory bus.
If you hate wireless controllers, then you must hate every gaming system that's been out for the last 10 years. Wireless is the way things have been goi g for a decade, and that's how they will continue to go. No one else seems to have problems with lTency. If they did, it would be a big story in all the gaming sites, and both Microsoft and Sony would have major problems. It isn't, and they don't.
It doesn't read like you do. There are differing controllers for racing games, air battle games, and so on. Wireless motion controllers work very well for many games. I'm not saying that the iphone, or iTouch is an ideal shape for this. But I'm doing it, and it works just fine for those games for which a 3D controller is designed. One major point to this is the cost of controllers. If you can use your phone, you MAY not need to buy a controller for a while, or not at all. Your mileage, as they say, may vary.
And you're ignoring g that developers may very design more games for which this might work well. The fact that they haven't, so far, is because not many people are using the Tv screen and using their phone at the same time. Right now, for many games it is awkward, because there are no good controls written for the phone. That doesn't mean that there won't be.
No it doesn't. I really don't think you play many games. There are different kinds of controllers for different games. For the racing games, as I mentioned, it does make a fine controller now. In fact, the standard console controllers make terrible controllers for racing games. There are all kinds of controllers, some of those for racing cost hundreds of dollars. Do you need that? No, but people buy them.
Really? An iPhone makes a "fine" controller for racing games with its tiny form factor, not very grippable design, and absence of buttons? Better than the "terrible" Dual Shock 3 with Sixaxis and analogue triggers, or the Wii Remote?
I don't see it. Not at all.
Isn't the iPhone an expensive controller? the cheapest iPhone 6 is almost twice the price of a PS4
I have played, or rather tried to play, a number of games on my TV through mirroring the iPhone to the ATV and using the phone as controller.
Even for the simpler games, eg a racing game where the gyro if the phone is used for steering, accelerating and breaking, this was less than pleasant.
I gave up quickly.
Ok, partly due to the lag caused by the video streaming, partly by the frequent loss of connection, but mainly simply because it just didn't provide the right feel.
I'm a casual gamer, I have to add.
iPads are already on level of PS3 but games are still trailing behind, on average.
Hardware power is just the beginning. Investment in software development is part of equation that isn't solved yet, imho. Exclusive developers for both Sony and MS are pampered, shoveled with money and relaxed in terms of deadlines. They are illiterately thoroughbred to be creators of each console showcases.
GT5, for example, had around $60 million budget and it took 5 years to develop, if not more. Frankly the game was not as good as one could expect from these numbers, but it was still easily the largest driving game ever created - with 1200 cars, over 50 tracks etc. It also came on BD disk with over 25GB of data on it, if memory serves.
Sony (and MS) can indulge in projects like this because, historically, GT franchise sold around 70 million copies, and if we presume that games took $30 on average (some purchased at full price, some purchased later after price drop), that is over $2 billion. It is easy to budget $60 million when franchise has already rewarded you this much.
But this takes us to other problems. Console gamers are willing to pay full price for the game. How many Android/iOS phone and tablet users are also willing to shed $60 for a premium game? And how do you distribute game 20GB heavy to system with limited flash memory?
I'm not saying that problems are impossible to overcome, but I am saying that improving hardware performance alone isn't enough - whole platform must be more game-centric. From AAA developers, through full price games, to sustainable delivery and management of purchased content.
I know. But I think it is primarily crisis of the platform that smartphones and tablets are taking advantage of, rather than smartphones and tablets creating that crisis on their own.
Problem with portable consoles - the way I see it - is that, on one side, they cannot provide experience of desktop consoles (and gaming PC) - limited storage, weak hardware, small and low-res screens... and as gaming population gets older and older on average, carrying game console in the pocket is getting less and less appealing. Still attractive for kids, but as home consoles are quite common nowadays, I think many parents will decide not to indulge kids with another console, retreating to "have a quick game on my smartphone" if they really desperately need distraction for kids in car or shopping mall.
This based mostly on my and my friends experience. Back in the days I god PSP out of curiosity, and while I did take it with me on travels, I felt uncomfortable to game in public while waiting for my wife to do shopping. Gaming on smartphone came up much easier because it is phone, something that so many have with them anyway... portable console in public was just too... nerdy? I don't know. It just wasn't comfortable. I'm still planing to get Vita as I have piled up decent library of free Vita games through PSN+, but for sure I will not game on it in public. I'm mostly curious to try what device is capable of.
In addition, Nintendo isn't pushing margins too much - their hardware is usually weaker than competition, even if competition is already nowhere to levels of desktop gaming. Other issue Nintendo has is lack of new exclusive franchises - save for Splatoon (which is not portable game anyway), what 3Ds gets are mostly improved (?) versions of franchises that already go for ever and have lost a lot of freshness - again, my opinion. They did bet hard on glass-less 3D but those gadgets have history of hits or fails - motion controller on Wii was success, Wii U controller with secondary screen simply didn't materialize.
All in all, I think that mobile consoles are in decline on their own. Smart devices are taking advantage and, in process, helping that decline, but I think 3Ds, Vita... would not be much more successful even if smartphones were not getting this proficient in gaming potential.
True but if you already own an iPhone your controller is free. Include a basic controller but also allow iDevices as controllers.
No. It is never free
Ok then, it is already paid for and doesn't cost you any extra. Note that if someone gives you their old iPhone it is free for you!
iOS is a gaming platform for casuals. TV Consoles are for mainstream gamers. Unless Apple TV has some quad-core setup with 1TB of storage. Gamers won't be giving up their TV consoles yet. Not to mention content is the biggest draw to TV consoles. Nintendo's own IP portfolio surpasses all others game IPs in the industry. These articles are once again articles point to unsubstantiated facts. The iPhone/iPad platform stands a better chance to take over the mobile gaming industry than the mainstream console biz.
The article failed to mention the biggest gaming platform i still Windows. Some 2 billion PCs out there are actively gaming PCs.
Remember, this is Apple, if someone "gives" you their iPhone, it will be an real old one, and won't be supported.
Ok, let's say I don't have an iPhone (I don't actually, so that part is ok). New Apple TV comes out, Apple says get an iPhone as a controller, so I spend maybe NZ$114 on the ATV (based on todays prices), then another $1000+ buying a controller? Plus another $1000 for everyone else that wants to use it?
Hopefully you see the issue there?
Remember, this is Apple, if someone "gives" you their iPhone, it will be an real old one, and won't be supported.
Ok, let's say I don't have an iPhone (I don't actually, so that part is ok). New Apple TV comes out, Apple says get an iPhone as a controller, so I spend maybe NZ$114 on the ATV (based on todays prices), then another $1000+ buying a controller? Plus another $1000 for everyone else that wants to use it?
Hopefully you see the issue there?
True but if you already own an iPhone your controller is free. Include a basic controller but also allow iDevices as controllers.
No issue.
There are likely around 2 billion PCs in use but are not all used for gaming. Steam has 125 million active accounts so that's a closer estimate. If you look at EA, Ubisoft, Take-Two and Activision's 2015 financials:
EA: PS4/XBO=$1.5b, PS3/360=$1.5b, Nintendo etc=$21m (this looks wrong but that's what's in their report), PC/browser=$878m, Mobile=$504m (EA owns popular mobile game franchises)
Activision: PS4/XBO/WiiU=$720m, PS3/360/Wii=$1.4b, PC=$551m, Online=$876m (World of Warcraft etc), Mobile&other=$433m (this includes toy sales)
Ubisoft: PS4/XBO=728m euros, PS3/360=364m euros, Nintendo=70m euros, PC=168m euros
Take-Two: revenue by all consoles=$880m, PC=$203m
By revenue, the PC is lagging behind the combined consoles. Against individual consoles, it's doing well.
These revenues come from game sales that are about $40-60 and also some subscription games. Call of Duty has made Activision $11b in 11 years so is a $1b/year franchise. World of Warcraft is close to this, as is Battlefield. These companies have a handful of core franchises that generate massive revenues. They pump almost all of it back into new games so net profits are low.
The mobile landscape is a bit like this. EA has bought some of the companies with the biggest franchises. Apple paid out around $10b in 2014 and EA alone was likely paid about $300m. Candy Crush would get about $0.8-1b. The top 10-20 games will take over half the App Store earnings. A few big franchises make the most money. The biggest mobile franchises are heavily touch games so the ?TV model would be different and the way mobile games make money is with IAPs and ads, which would have to work on a TV setup.
If a game like Mario Kart was available for the ?TV, would people spend $38 on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Mario-Kart-Wii-Nintendo/dp/B001GIUWX0
I don't think it would have to be free-to-play but it would have to be a mix of guaranteed revenue from up-front sales with in-app purchases or DLCs. This is a tricky thing to pull off because people don't like to pay up-front and in-game, it makes people feel like they've been sold only part of a game disingenuously and are then being milked for the rest of it. I think if it's made clear at the time of purchase what's included and what the upgrades are then it's not so bad. They could have a $5 game with $0.99 each for track packs and vehicle packs. If the store is left open for poor quality apps to get in then it lowers buyer expectations for quality and willingness to pay high prices.
When you think about gaming on iOS just now, Apple is paying out $10b to developers per year so overall revenue is ~$14b and this is with an install base of well over 400 million, the ?TV base of 25 million where a smaller portion would be gaming than on iOS is unlikely to make much of the $34b or whatever revenue goes into PC and console gaming. If it even monetizes at the same rate as iOS, the revenue would be $875m and the revenue portion for Apple would be just over $260m.
It's a nice feature to have though and a selling point for the box itself, which makes money. Nintendo makes most of their money from hardware. If good developers can find a payment model to make it financially viable then it will satisfy a decent sized audience. AAA development isn't producing enough quality titles quickly enough. You can go a whole year now and only find a handful of games worth playing. Something between mobile and console would be nice.
The next Hitman game looks like it will go this route where it won't just be a standalone game but an ongoing service where they add levels and missions. This model could work quite well and it helps with the development time. In narrative games it can break up the story too much but as long as they don't take too long between portions then it's ok. It also limits the damage if they make a flop because they've only spent staff time on the first portion.
Developers should really aim to match the movie industry where they can turn a finished product round in about a year. 3 year development times are just too long to wait for a single game.
Now you are being absurd. Do you really think that a) none of your friends will have a top of the line iPhone, b) that each of your friends would buy a top of the line iPhone, and c) that Apple would not also release lower-priced controller only devices? At worst you could buy a current version iPod touch. More likely you would be able to use the previous generation iPod touch or any iDevice that supports the next iOS release and, unlike most Android devices, Apple supports their devices with operating system updates for years after their introduction.
Except the price will be going up
Of the people I know with iPhones, none of them would come around to play video games.
And the cheapest iPod Touch is NZ$349, you expect me to pay three times more for a controller than the damn console costs? And that is the crappy 16Gb version, get a 32Gb one and you could buy a PS4 for the same price. And they are a personal item, you need to get multiple ones otherwise how do you play games if someone else is using it?
Funny, the iPod touch my mother has isn't that old, and it isn't supported for any updates anymore. Why bring up Android, what has Android got to do with people suggesting to used a iPhone as a controller for games console? They need to supply a physical controller, and have these available for purchase as additional units, otherwise you have a limited customer base of people that own iPhones.
Now, where you should be pushing this idea, is something Sony came up with, and has really failed to achieve. Use the iPod, iPad, iPhone as a second screen, play a racing game, using the iPod as the wing mirror etc
First of all, you ignore the fact that the new AppleTV will come with a controller according to rumor reports. Second, considering that the reported package price for the Apple TV and controller is US$149, there is no way additional controllers will be more than that price. If additional controllers are priced higher than that, just buy additional Apple TV packages and use the included controller.
All this is speculation until September 9th so there is no need to worry until that time. Your worries won't change what is announced.
That said, I had a great time when I visited NZ 22 years ago. I brought a new mountain bike and biked around the country for six weeks. I didn't know until a few years ago that I had relatives in Wellington. I could have hit them up for a place to stay when I passed through! This was pre-Internet and the travel books I ordered from my local bookstore never arrived so I had no idea what to expect in terms of weather, distances, or places to see. Fortunately this was also before all the ongoing terrorism so things were more lax and I got the attention of several of the stewardesses on the long flight and we came up with a lot of ideas. Bottom line is that the trip was a lot of fun.
Reported? I didn't think Apple had reported anything yet?