Strange they changed it, wonder what prompted that.
I could imagine someone buying a $5 game, downloading it and on opening it find out they need a $50 controller to play it and then ask for a refund. It would be a headache to deal with that if there are hundreds of thousands of purchases to deal with.
The remote should provide enough control to support more complex games. With the accelerometer and gryo and touchpad, that covers two thumbsticks. Apple's documentation calls the remote a micro gamepad and says it consists of a directional pad and two buttons (A and X):
One of the games they demoed showed holding the play button down for forward movement while swipe controls the aim direction. Developers will have limited ability to use the physical buttons because they are intended to be consistently used for volume control, menu, play/pause. The documentation says that the A button is a hard press on the touchpad and the remote is by default expected in the portrait orientation. X might be a tap on the touchpad or holding down play. I think the play button control would get annoying because it will have to pause the game for a short press.
The good thing having the touchpad is that you can split it into as many buttons as you need. Say you had a shooter, which needs move, aim, shoot, cover, duck. They can map a normal controller left thumbstick to the accelerometer/gryo, which gives strafing. Use touchpad swipe for precise aiming. Then just set touch regions on the pad for shoot, cover, duck e.g top the top 2/3 region for shoot, tap the lower 1/3 region for duck but when the character is near cover, the lower 1/3 will move to cover instead of duck and pressing it while in cover can go up or down. They can set the top corners to switch weapons, alternate fire modes, grenades etc.
It would have been better to have shoulder buttons because the touchpad alone leaves the same issue with touchscreens, which is a lack of simultaneous input. Touchscreens have 2 (3 with gryo/acceleroemeter), controllers have 6, this remote is intended to have 1 but the gyro/accelerometer can make it 2. Flush invisible buttons on the side of the remote could have brought the total to somewhere between 4 and 7 simultaneous inputs.
The controller isn't ideal for fast-paced titles that need a lot of inputs but it behaves a lot like the Wii-mote and Playstation Move. The games most suited to it are games like the following:
[VIDEO]
This is mostly what App Store games are like anyway so it's really just bringing that experience to the TV. They can always improve the remote in future generations if the current one is limiting.
I find myself more on the fence about getting one, where previously I wasn't so sure. I'd really like to play with it first before spending $200.
Being on the fence and being unsure mean the same thing!
Anyway, yes there will very likely be demo units in Apple Stores, there's usually at least one even in smaller stores. I cut the cord to cable in 2009 and use my ATV for all my TV viewing (or iPad if I'm in bed) and will take the plunge. I'm more excited about this than anything else they announced this year.
I could imagine someone buying a $5 game, downloading it and on opening it find out they need a $50 controller to play it and then ask for a refund. It would be a headache to deal with that if there are hundreds of thousands of purchases to deal with.
The remote should provide enough control to support more complex games. With the accelerometer and gryo and touchpad, that covers two thumbsticks. Apple's documentation calls the remote a micro gamepad and says it consists of a directional pad and two buttons (A and X):
One of the games they demoed showed holding the play button down for forward movement while swipe controls the aim direction. Developers will have limited ability to use the physical buttons because they are intended to be consistently used for volume control, menu, play/pause. The documentation says that the A button is a hard press on the touchpad and the remote is by default expected in the portrait orientation. X might be a tap on the touchpad or holding down play. I think the play button control would get annoying because it will have to pause the game for a short press.
The good thing having the touchpad is that you can split it into as many buttons as you need. Say you had a shooter, which needs move, aim, shoot, cover, duck. They can map a normal controller left thumbstick to the accelerometer/gryo, which gives strafing. Use touchpad swipe for precise aiming. Then just set touch regions on the pad for shoot, cover, duck e.g top the top 2/3 region for shoot, tap the lower 1/3 region for duck but when the character is near cover, the lower 1/3 will move to cover instead of duck and pressing it while in cover can go up or down. They can set the top corners to switch weapons, alternate fire modes, grenades etc.
It would have been better to have shoulder buttons because the touchpad alone leaves the same issue with touchscreens, which is a lack of simultaneous input. Touchscreens have 2 (3 with gryo/acceleroemeter), controllers have 6, this remote is intended to have 1 but the gyro/accelerometer can make it 2. Flush invisible buttons on the side of the remote could have brought the total to somewhere between 4 and 7 simultaneous inputs.
The controller isn't ideal for fast-paced titles that need a lot of inputs but it behaves a lot like the Wii-mote and Playstation Move. The games most suited to it are games like the following:
This is mostly what App Store games are like anyway so it's really just bringing that experience to the TV. They can always improve the remote in future generations if the current one is limiting.
That's great, thanks for that excellent summary. I had assumed if they could turn touch into an interface for games that had previously always been controller based, clever developers could easily figure out how to use the little ATV remote too. Didn't realise there were actually quite a few buttons (or actions) the remote would support, so that's good news indeed. Although it won't be ideal, games will still be very playable with the included remote, and if people can use the included remote to play all games, that means more games can be played by all, which means more success for games, which means more games on offer.
As for controllers, one thing I've noticed is that there are currently a couple of games offering (or soon to offer) bundles which include an MFi controller: Disney Infinity 3.0 (in development), and Skylanders Trap Team. Both of those bundles include an MFi controller. I can easily see how game manufacturers could offer similar bundles which will make getting controllers in the hands of gamers an easier job. One blockbuster game with a bundled controller and, boom, suddenly a big portion of gamers will own MFi controllers, which hopefully will encourage more developers to support those controllers, which is my preference and the preference I'm sure of lots of gamers out there.
But, the good news is that if someone doesn't have a controller, they can still play all games using the included remote, and if they are happy using that as a controller and it works for them, it's all good for gaming on this device.
I wonder what game developers think of Apple's reversal regarding game controllers? The new requirement is every game must support Apple's remote. No games will be allowed that require a third-party controller. It kind of makes me wonder why Apple didn't just design it's on game controller? I have a hard time seeing people play console quality games with the Apple remote.
In general, game developers will just pay lip service to the "apple remote" option and tell players straight up to use a MFi controller. Think about how Nintendo gets developers to use the Wiimote (which has less buttons) but some games require the full controller or analog nun-chuck attachment. It's not like the iPad and iPhone with some idiot developers porting over FPS and mouse-intensive games to the much-less-pixel-accurate touch screen. Like look no further than the port of FF7 to the iPhone/iPad to see why forcing touch screen controls is a bad idea... they basically had to make it so the entire game could be cheated through because it's not designed as a mobile game for one, and because touch-pad controls emulating a controller is basically the worst thing next to "on screen keyboards" that have to be clicked one letter at a time with a mouse or gamepad.
It will be disappointing if we in the UK don't have an iPlayer app at launch or soon after
This is something about which I am wondering myself. They have an iOS app, previously they refused to develop an ATV app, well because, they actually made no sense what they said, but if they have an iOS app, they really need to get off their collective arses and update it so we can finally get a native ATV iPlayer app!
There are two developers who could really change the TV landscape and make ?TV the primary HDMI input. Both TiVo and elgato could make apps for ?TV that added first class cable (or antenna) DVR capability. TiVo makes a local network product called TiVo mini that has no tuners built in but can use a TiVo Roamio's tuners and recorded shows (and 'control' the main TiVo) over a local wired ethernet. If the app that runs the TiVo mini were ported to ?TV, TiVo might be able to sell TiVo Roamio's to a large number of ?TV owners who still want their cable TV and a better DVR experience.
Elgato already makes iOS apps but they depend on software (EyeTV) running on a Mac. A ported version of EyeTV software might make a very compelling app for ?TV. It would probably have to use NAS or a networked drive for DVR purposes, but many who connect a Mac Mini and use EyeTV as their DVR can attest it is a good solution.
Comments
I could imagine someone buying a $5 game, downloading it and on opening it find out they need a $50 controller to play it and then ask for a refund. It would be a headache to deal with that if there are hundreds of thousands of purchases to deal with.
The remote should provide enough control to support more complex games. With the accelerometer and gryo and touchpad, that covers two thumbsticks. Apple's documentation calls the remote a micro gamepad and says it consists of a directional pad and two buttons (A and X):
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/documentation/GameController/Reference/GCMicroGamepad_Ref/index.html
One of the games they demoed showed holding the play button down for forward movement while swipe controls the aim direction. Developers will have limited ability to use the physical buttons because they are intended to be consistently used for volume control, menu, play/pause. The documentation says that the A button is a hard press on the touchpad and the remote is by default expected in the portrait orientation. X might be a tap on the touchpad or holding down play. I think the play button control would get annoying because it will have to pause the game for a short press.
The good thing having the touchpad is that you can split it into as many buttons as you need. Say you had a shooter, which needs move, aim, shoot, cover, duck. They can map a normal controller left thumbstick to the accelerometer/gryo, which gives strafing. Use touchpad swipe for precise aiming. Then just set touch regions on the pad for shoot, cover, duck e.g top the top 2/3 region for shoot, tap the lower 1/3 region for duck but when the character is near cover, the lower 1/3 will move to cover instead of duck and pressing it while in cover can go up or down. They can set the top corners to switch weapons, alternate fire modes, grenades etc.
It would have been better to have shoulder buttons because the touchpad alone leaves the same issue with touchscreens, which is a lack of simultaneous input. Touchscreens have 2 (3 with gryo/acceleroemeter), controllers have 6, this remote is intended to have 1 but the gyro/accelerometer can make it 2. Flush invisible buttons on the side of the remote could have brought the total to somewhere between 4 and 7 simultaneous inputs.
The controller isn't ideal for fast-paced titles that need a lot of inputs but it behaves a lot like the Wii-mote and Playstation Move. The games most suited to it are games like the following:
[VIDEO]
This is mostly what App Store games are like anyway so it's really just bringing that experience to the TV. They can always improve the remote in future generations if the current one is limiting.
I find myself more on the fence about getting one, where previously I wasn't so sure. I'd really like to play with it first before spending $200.
Being on the fence and being unsure mean the same thing!
Anyway, yes there will very likely be demo units in Apple Stores, there's usually at least one even in smaller stores. I cut the cord to cable in 2009 and use my ATV for all my TV viewing (or iPad if I'm in bed) and will take the plunge. I'm more excited about this than anything else they announced this year.
I could imagine someone buying a $5 game, downloading it and on opening it find out they need a $50 controller to play it and then ask for a refund. It would be a headache to deal with that if there are hundreds of thousands of purchases to deal with.
The remote should provide enough control to support more complex games. With the accelerometer and gryo and touchpad, that covers two thumbsticks. Apple's documentation calls the remote a micro gamepad and says it consists of a directional pad and two buttons (A and X):
https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/documentation/GameController/Reference/GCMicroGamepad_Ref/index.html
One of the games they demoed showed holding the play button down for forward movement while swipe controls the aim direction. Developers will have limited ability to use the physical buttons because they are intended to be consistently used for volume control, menu, play/pause. The documentation says that the A button is a hard press on the touchpad and the remote is by default expected in the portrait orientation. X might be a tap on the touchpad or holding down play. I think the play button control would get annoying because it will have to pause the game for a short press.
The good thing having the touchpad is that you can split it into as many buttons as you need. Say you had a shooter, which needs move, aim, shoot, cover, duck. They can map a normal controller left thumbstick to the accelerometer/gryo, which gives strafing. Use touchpad swipe for precise aiming. Then just set touch regions on the pad for shoot, cover, duck e.g top the top 2/3 region for shoot, tap the lower 1/3 region for duck but when the character is near cover, the lower 1/3 will move to cover instead of duck and pressing it while in cover can go up or down. They can set the top corners to switch weapons, alternate fire modes, grenades etc.
It would have been better to have shoulder buttons because the touchpad alone leaves the same issue with touchscreens, which is a lack of simultaneous input. Touchscreens have 2 (3 with gryo/acceleroemeter), controllers have 6, this remote is intended to have 1 but the gyro/accelerometer can make it 2. Flush invisible buttons on the side of the remote could have brought the total to somewhere between 4 and 7 simultaneous inputs.
The controller isn't ideal for fast-paced titles that need a lot of inputs but it behaves a lot like the Wii-mote and Playstation Move. The games most suited to it are games like the following:
This is mostly what App Store games are like anyway so it's really just bringing that experience to the TV. They can always improve the remote in future generations if the current one is limiting.
That's great, thanks for that excellent summary. I had assumed if they could turn touch into an interface for games that had previously always been controller based, clever developers could easily figure out how to use the little ATV remote too. Didn't realise there were actually quite a few buttons (or actions) the remote would support, so that's good news indeed. Although it won't be ideal, games will still be very playable with the included remote, and if people can use the included remote to play all games, that means more games can be played by all, which means more success for games, which means more games on offer.
As for controllers, one thing I've noticed is that there are currently a couple of games offering (or soon to offer) bundles which include an MFi controller: Disney Infinity 3.0 (in development), and Skylanders Trap Team. Both of those bundles include an MFi controller. I can easily see how game manufacturers could offer similar bundles which will make getting controllers in the hands of gamers an easier job. One blockbuster game with a bundled controller and, boom, suddenly a big portion of gamers will own MFi controllers, which hopefully will encourage more developers to support those controllers, which is my preference and the preference I'm sure of lots of gamers out there.
But, the good news is that if someone doesn't have a controller, they can still play all games using the included remote, and if they are happy using that as a controller and it works for them, it's all good for gaming on this device.
It will be disappointing if we in the UK don't have an iPlayer app at launch or soon after
Wow! Less than 3 days and some attention grabbing internet narcissist is violating the NDA…
Awesome! Who wants to bet this will be the last time Apple does something great like this for us developers?
(Apple gave me one and I won't be spilling the beans on it because they asked developers not to).
In general, game developers will just pay lip service to the "apple remote" option and tell players straight up to use a MFi controller. Think about how Nintendo gets developers to use the Wiimote (which has less buttons) but some games require the full controller or analog nun-chuck attachment. It's not like the iPad and iPhone with some idiot developers porting over FPS and mouse-intensive games to the much-less-pixel-accurate touch screen. Like look no further than the port of FF7 to the iPhone/iPad to see why forcing touch screen controls is a bad idea... they basically had to make it so the entire game could be cheated through because it's not designed as a mobile game for one, and because touch-pad controls emulating a controller is basically the worst thing next to "on screen keyboards" that have to be clicked one letter at a time with a mouse or gamepad.
Anyone know if the BBC have one yet?
It will be disappointing if we in the UK don't have an iPlayer app at launch or soon after
This is something about which I am wondering myself. They have an iOS app, previously they refused to develop an ATV app, well because, they actually made no sense what they said, but if they have an iOS app, they really need to get off their collective arses and update it so we can finally get a native ATV iPlayer app!
There are two developers who could really change the TV landscape and make ?TV the primary HDMI input. Both TiVo and elgato could make apps for ?TV that added first class cable (or antenna) DVR capability. TiVo makes a local network product called TiVo mini that has no tuners built in but can use a TiVo Roamio's tuners and recorded shows (and 'control' the main TiVo) over a local wired ethernet. If the app that runs the TiVo mini were ported to ?TV, TiVo might be able to sell TiVo Roamio's to a large number of ?TV owners who still want their cable TV and a better DVR experience.
Elgato already makes iOS apps but they depend on software (EyeTV) running on a Mac. A ported version of EyeTV software might make a very compelling app for ?TV. It would probably have to use NAS or a networked drive for DVR purposes, but many who connect a Mac Mini and use EyeTV as their DVR can attest it is a good solution.