Hmm... Pretty interesting article, got it from this This IGN article. Well, what do you guys think of this article? The iPlay picture is just an artist's impression so don't get any ideas
Apple have this niche market all wrapped up. Why waste tens of millions of $$ fighting the big guys? The Xbox lost money pretty much the whole way, the PS3 still loses Sony $40 per purchase. Apple lose that too? For what? The installed userbase of other games systems is massive. But then they just spent a billion on something: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/new_apple_data_center/ More to the point - which games publishers are they going to sign up to exclusives? Microsoft / Sony have back catalogues, Apple have zip. And if they share why buy yet another console for no game gain?
The only reason Apple would think of making such a thing is due to MS and Sony attempting to make gains in Apple territory. I don't mean mobile platforms, btw. I'm talking digital distribution "stores", and hardware to push said dd "stores". PSN and XBox LIVE, because they are ramping up distribution not only of games, but also music and movies, are assuredly trying to grab a chunk of Apple territory. So Apple is bound to directly compete with them at some point on a grander scale. But...I don't think they'll do it with a video game console. Or, rather, they won't do it with something that is a video game console primarily, although games may be a sizable focus. Instead, the product I envision would be what the iPod touch and iPhone basically are in terms of product focus: all in one style devices. Basically, Apple will take the design focus behind the iTouch/Phone platform (which itself expanded upon the groundwork laid by the classic iPod line) and expand it further...to the home. And Apple has kind of already done just that with: Apple TV. There were rumors of games coming to Apple TV...but that never became reality. And while Jobs may state that Apple TV is "a hobby", I think it's Apple's way of testing the waters. What is Apple TV, really? Well...it's pretty much a giant iPod...without a screen...that you hook up to your TV. In many ways Apple TV and iPod (which includes the iTouch/Phone line) are one and the same in terms of what they can do. You can hook up your iPod to view movies on your TV set, after all, and rent movies onto iPod same as you do with Apple TV. The difference, however, is that Apple TV offers much larger internal storage, more powerful hardware, and, of course, HD programming. And you can't take it with you like you can with iPod and iTouch/Phone. And among those rumors for games on Apple TV there were allusions to using iTouch/Phone as a controller for the games. But my thinking is: why use iTouch/Phone as a controller for games on Apple TV? Especially since the combined cost would be far out of the desired price point for most consumers? Instead, why not make a new Apple TV that isn't bound to the home but instead can be taken with you? But...that's pretty much what the iPod and iTouch/Phone are, no? Well...yeah. That's my point. Apple's avenue to cut off headway gained by PSN through PSP and PS3 and XBox LIVE through 360 (and possibly the upcoming ZuneHD) is to simply make an iPod that does what Apple TV now does. Larger storage, more power, HD video, and games. Obviously the storage is an issue, but games are already dealt with with the App Store, and more power and HD video are, in fact, possible with current and future mobile technology. So instead of making the system use iTouch/Phone as a controller, why not make the system itself the next hardware (new CPU/GPU more RAM, etc.) version of the iTouch/Phone? Again, Apple TV and iTouch/Phone can do the same things, even output to TV...except Apple TV does HD video and has more storage. A truly next gen iTouch/Phone should be able to pull off HD video and have better graphical capabilities. So just make that truly next gen mobile hardware the "new" Apple TV, and therefore the "system" itself. The system is the controller...the controller is the system. To better facilitate usage at home, and provide more storage, have a charge/storage station that doubles as a video output box. Basically the box would be what Apple TV is...without the internal CPU and GPU, as that hardware would be in the iPod itself.
MS has pretty much always had a backcatalog, because MS was always a software company, and even before XBox they had the Windows platform to support with games and therefore went about creating internal development studios and buying outside studios a long time ago. Sony, on the other hand, dabbled every now and then in developing games, but they are primarily a hardware company. Always have been. So how did they get a catalog of games for Playstation? Buying up dev studios, creating internal ones, and opening up PSone development (in terms of actual SDK and royalties) moreso than their competitors at the time (Nintendo and Sega). Apple can do the same thing, really. There are a slew of studios they can buy. They can make a start up. And they can ensure that they open up development to ensure 3rd parties sign up, some with exclusives. I think studios wouldn't be as timid in signing up for development on an Apple platform as they would be with another company trying to "break in". Especially if Apple positions it as an "all in one" style multimedia device rather than a video game system.
I agree with what you say. However.. apart from the 3DO and the ridiculous 'toilet set' for the Jaguar I have bought all consoles/handhelds and a pile of games. This means that convincing my wife that I was getting a 360 (my last purchase) was very easy. But take a home that may just have the one console. Why buy Apple then? Sky+ is cheaper here in the UK, other games systems will have more games/be cheaper/be rentable, friends might not have the Apple whatever and online with no buddies is no fun for some, it's yet another thing to learn how to use, yet another remote to be lost, yet another thing to be plugged into the back of the TV. How big is the HD, how cheap to upgrade, "can I burn the films to dvd?" (no..) and more. To many people Apple = just expensive computers and for what I read many people get more out of that box when they have hacked at it in some way. In terms of hardware I don't actually care. I will buy whatever has the latest and best Final Fantasy (remember when that went from Nintendo to Sony?). I do think more hardware makers = more innovation. But saying that, I will absolutely spend less on games for the 360. Sony get my money if the game is on both platforms. So in that way I am costing MS money. And less money = less innovation. As a games player I can't help thinking this will cost more but give less. GTA4 on PS3 and 360. Which is best? Now add in Apple's toy. Here's a good one: "And if you buy the iphone game - at a knockdown $19.99 - you can get an extra car/dungeon/500 puzzles" That would go down noisily. I hope they do not come into games. I think it would cost gaming not enhance the world we want.
Consoles are becoming obsolete in a matter of years anyway. Very soon, if you want to play a game, you turn on your all-digital tv, press the GAME-button on your remote, select the game you want to play, grab a controller and GO. Everything online. Still love my PS3 tho.
I think Apple should consolidate their control over the smart phone gaming industry before branching out into anything else. The next possible step maybe the hand held portable games, like PSP and the Nintendo DS. It would be not a good choice for Apple to go into the field where many companies have already established a niche for themselves.
They'd have to come out with something totally revolutionary, like augmented or virtual reality. There's no point in trying the same 'ol formula that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have already perfected.
well, their "revolution" then would be an all in one product that hits two, maybe three, markets at once while really, technically, being a niche unto itself. Basically, my idea of a stand alone iPlayer. Does everything current iTouch/Phone does (music, apps, games, etc.) with the accelerometer and multitouch screen, but also does everything the current models don't which the Apple TV does: HD video, larger storage size. The system is the controller, the controller is the system. Think of it as a next gen version of what Sega envisioned with Sega Nomad: a truly portable home console. Think of it as what PSP is with TV out, but now replace PSP's graphical power with that of, say, Nintendo's Wii, add in the accelerometer and multitouch of the iTouch/Phone, and the capability of HD video output. And think of those little experiments Nintendo did with Game Boy Advance hookup with Gamecube, and the dual screen stuff used in DS...but on a grander scale. The TV set is one screen, the mobile device (which actually runs the game software itself) is the other screen...and the controller. That's pretty evolutionary if not revolutionary.
.. which has to go back to Apple every year for some battery issue, or if it goes wrong you lose everything, that Apple check to see what you watched, when you watched it, how many ads you saw, what music you played .. etc. You buy your 500gb drive to backup the machine when you take it to a genius. Oh yes, and form will win over function so it'll get hot. Hot = fans and they wear out. I would certainly not put all my entertainment into one box regardless of who made it.
It would be amazing if games could be shared between iDevice and AppleTV. Use the iDevice as the controller, or perhaps a wireless Wii-like controller with some real buttons and it would be perfect.
Thank you for pointing that out. I was previously aware of the TV-out functionality. Touch Arcade featured this video several months ago. Though it is cool that it is possible, it is currently less than ideal: 1. It is not wireless. You are, in fact, on a rather short leash. 2. The iDevice screen goes blank, counting out any games that involve button-pressing. 3. If I am not mistaken, the frame rate is slower. The game in the video you referenced appeared to run smoothly, however.
Yeah...but that's not really what I'm getting at. Sharing games between the iTouch/Phone and AppleTV and using the iTouch/Phone as a controller is too expensive on the consumer end as it requires two wholly separate purchases and hardware products. And due to that separate purchase it means that there's no way for developers to ensure that the vast majority own both devices and that will not make it worthwhile for those devs to pursue development for the "dual system" idea. So, why not just make a next gen iTouch/Phone that is itself the next gen AppleTV (or, rather, does what the AppleTV does right now)? Basically an iTouch/Phone capable of more processing power and able to run HD content. Now package it with a separate "station" box that simply acts as a charging/storage/tv connection/ethernet access hub. The necessary hardware (CPU, GPU, RAM, etc.) would be on the mobile device itself. The "hub" would just negate the need for Mac or PC ownership to set up an account or store stuff that you can't fit on the mobile device. This package would be stock. If you buy this new hypothetical iTouch/Phone you get the "hub" included in the box. The mobile unit would have to be powerful enough, however, to run the image to the hub (which would then run it to the TV set) while also maintaining a screen image on itself and allowing for usage of the multitouch and accelerometer capability. The system is the controller, the controller is the system. The hardware to run the games would be on the mobile device, so you can take the games with you, and if you want to play at home you simply connect to the "hub" which would simply allow for charging whilst displaying the image on the TV set. Perhaps though, if additional power would be needed to display two images at once (one on the mobile device, one to the TV set) maybe there can be a duplicate set of the mobile hardware processors within the hub, although I gather with well designed internal components in the mobile device such a duplicate set wouldn't be absolutely necessary.
@spiffy I only meant to suggest the iDevice would be an optional input controller. Apple could distribute an app similar to Remote. Of course the Apple-Console-TV-amajig would have to include it's own input device for users who don't have an iPhone or iTouch. Besides, I was just dreaming: I don't think such upgrades are on Apple's radar.
