Slashdot Mirror
How Apple Is Preventing the Apple TV From Becoming a Console Rival (redbull.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Apple's new set top box is on sale now, and has launched with several high profile games in the new tvOS App Store, including Guitar Hero Live and PS4 hit Transistor. However, as one writer points out, the Apple TV is still not an adequate console replacement, and it's not because of the graphics. Instead, several software issues and restrictions issued by Apple itself prevent developers from creating blockbuster exclusives for the platform, including the requirement that all games be playable using the bundled remote, lack of support for four players, and the 200MB initial app download limit. If these remain in place, can the Apple TV become a viable games platform, where the Ouya and PlayStation TV have failed before?
That is all.
Not even one week. 5 days. it's entirely likely that the apple tv will continue to gain new features, like 4-player and higher downloads. The remote thing doesn't sound so awful to me, it means that people can download and try out games even if they don't have a controller...
I see a lot of possiblities in this. One big diff will be when you can control apple radio with siri, the way you can on the iphone. a problem tho with apple radio playing on a tv is that tv speakers usually suk where as stereo speakers are often better. I'm not sure if there's a way to direct the sound output within the apple tv itself.
Yes, but does it have more space than a Nomad?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Of course it's not (yet), and the requirements for this first attempt at building a gaming console are an experiment in itself. But the next one, next year that is, will be. Just be patient. Apple release new devices every year, Sony and Microsoft every decade or so. :)
Whaaaat? So I can't immediately take up the all of the available space on your apple tv with my awesome calculator app? It's only 30GB but the graphics are awesome!
In all seriousness Fallout 4 is supposedly going to be a 28GB download. But the 50MB cellular limit on iphone/ipad is a pita.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
The requirement to be able to play games using that stupid remote shows how little Apple knows about gaming.
Fight for your bitcoins!
Seriously... is AppleTV being marketed as a video games console? No it isn't, nor has it ever been, at any point in time.
Complaining about how a (more or less) advanced media player can't compete against flagship console devices that were *designed* to play all these fancy schmancy games, is like complaining that Lamborghini's cars arn't capable of flight because they refuse to add wings and connect a propeller to it's powerful engine.
I had an Ouya console. It was inexpensive, had support for four wireless controllers, and was easy to use.
The biggest problem was a lack of good content at launch. A vast majority of the content was cheap, buggy, and not entertaining. The Ouya folks let anyone throw crap up into the system, it seemed. It may have been more successful with less but higher quality content.
Love sees no species.
Does it have Super Breakout? Asking for a friend.
They don't want it to be?
Just a thought.
The real answer is that Apple has never focused on games and gamers. There's no secret technical issue. They're making half-efforts. If they someday decide to care, then maybe they'll release a competitive solution.
The Apple TV isn't marketed as a gaming console. It's advertised as a streaming box that also has games. The kind of simple whack-a-mole or platform-jumping games--the casual games. That is the same target audience with Nintendo's consoles. The iPhone/iPads are killing Nintendo's handheld devices, now the Apple TV is a threat to console too.
The serious gamers, who are willing to pay full price for AAA titles, will always want top-notch graphics. That means a gaming PC, a PS4 or an Xbox. As good as ARM processors are, they can't beat high-end dedicated graphic cards.
I think if your an Apple fan and have a lot of Apple devices then the Apple TV is perfect. But beyond that I would have to question its limitations in content, hardware and flexibility. Roku and Amazon have cheaper devices that are already capable of 4K resolution. Not that everyone has a 4K res TV but you do have built in longevity with those devices. Somehow Apple is not cutting edge on the new Apple TV and probably because its using the 4K as a future selling point. Typical of Apple to leave people wanting more. I'm not particularly impressed with apps and even the developers seem rather upset at how Apple is doing apps on the Apple TV. In any case the question remains how many will fork over more dollars for what the Apple TV can do? Time will tell on that one. In my opinion Apple has not addressed what Apple TV has always lacked and that is plenty of accessible content beyond what Apple offers.
Encourage local multiplayer, stop the neverending stream of updates and patches, and allow you to own the fucking game ....
Then yes, they could fix the lazy fuckups that Sony and Microsoft are making, and steal a whole load of marketshare.
Sure the screen is bigger, but the graphics aren't much better and you're monopolizing the TV.
But sometimes you want to monopolize the TV because that's more comfortable than trying to fit two to four adult bodies around a 19 to 24 inch desktop PC monitor, especially in games where sharing a screen doesn't mean splitting it. The idea of OUYA was to put indie games on a screen big enough for more than one person. It failed as a product but succeeded in getting competitors such as Sony Computer Entertainment to open up more to indie companies.
Seriously... is AppleTV being marketed as a video games console? No it isn't, nor has it ever been, at any point in time.
Complaining about how a (more or less) advanced media player can't compete against flagship console devices that were *designed* to play all these fancy schmancy games, is like complaining that Lamborghini's cars arn't capable of flight because they refuse to add wings and connect a propeller to it's powerful engine.
I don't think think they are claiming that Apple TV would be a good console. They are complaining that for some nefarious reason Apple is refusing to compete in the console wars, probably due to some underhanded conspiracy they have supposedly cooked up with Sony, Microsoft and the gray aliens, to screw over the man^W gamer in the street ... or something like that (and don't ask me what the gray aliens have to do with it). This is Slashdot after all, when it comes to cooking up evil corporate conspiracy theories this is the place you want to be.
does it have more space than a Nomad?
Yes.
The biggest game for the Sega Nomad was probably Capcom's Super Street Fighter II, at 5 MB. The biggest executable for Apple's tvOS is 40 times that according to the summary, and that's even before the game downloads its asset pack on first launch.
Apple is so tied-up in giving you what they want to give you, that they have no interest in giving you what they want. Even as a TV console - can I play videos from a USB stick? Can I play via my computer without some convoluted iTunes tie-in? Can I get content from places other than the iTunes store? The answers to all these (at least historically) have been "no" - they're selling you their dream of "streamlining your experience" by doing everything as controlled by them - through them. They can't even build a decent TV-box - and now they want to be a game-console, ignoring everything about how gamers play and insisting on their rules/their way? The utter arrogance...
When has Apple ever just dropped into a market? The last time I can remember was the Apple Newton; a device so far ahead of it's time it was a dismal failure in the marketplace.
Just as the iPod begat the iPod Touch, which begat the iPhone, Apple will (if they're so inclined) only move slowly forwards, consolidating their position in each incremental market move. Moving into a market where they have no experience is simply not the Apple way.
200Mb? Luxury. When I wer a lad, we ad to fit games in 6k
Thu wuh no disk drives, we ad to fit hole thing onna tape.
And thi dint av teams in them days, you ad to program by thi sen.
Thank you. The author missed the point. Apple is not interested in becoming a game platform rival. They are only interested in becoming the streaming media box of choice.
I think a lot of companies have realized that shitty "mobile" games are where the money is anyway now. Even big names like Namco are moving into that area. Those guys who make Candy Crush pull in over $1bn a year, for games that costs a fraction as much as a AAA console title to make.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Historically all the crap about Apple "not being able to do xxxxx" or "being computers for stupid people" was false. That's no longer true. The current people in charge at Apple have proven repeatedly that they are now making hardware and software designed specifically for idiots. Great thing I read a while back (I think around the release of Lion, AKA Apple Vista): "The new Apple... Computers for Morons... By Morons..."
This idiocy with limiting the Apple TV out of the box this way is just another symptom of the rot at the core.
They already offer the Nimbus Steel Series game controller as an AppleTV "Accessory" (even prominently showing it on the main AppleTV Product Page); so obviously, they don't have any illusions that the standard Siri Remote is going to be adequate for all games in all situations.
What they don't want to do, is to create entire categories of games that have NO WAY of playing with the Siri Remote.
As for the incremental download stuff, that is intended to avoid a frustrating wait (and unnecessary server load and download-cap teasing) while scene after scene, level after level, loads in, which most casual gamers won't even get to in that session.
On the other hand, they didn't want to price themselves out of the settop-box market, by making the AppleTV cost as much as a PS4 or XBox 1.
They made their engineering choices VERY wisely. This was NOT intended to be the next PS4/XBox. It was intended to be a Set Top Box that would let a couple of family-members play fairly nice games, but as only ONE of the types of uses, not in any way the central one, which is delivering streaming entertainment through your TV.
Sorry, everything doesn't have to do everything equally well. That's why our DVD Players don't make Toast. Or, more properly, why you CAN make Toast in a "Toaster Oven"; but most of them pretty well suck as Toasters, compared to the dedicated appliance for that function.
You're missing the big picture. People are speculating the next big convergence in electronics will be between TV streaming/tuning hardware and game consoles. I wouldn't have called it a few years ago, but I'm starting to agree with them. The biggest capital expense for a gamer is purchasing the 3D hardware. With bandwidth increasing and costs coming down, streamed 3D games are becoming more feasible, where the hardware and its costs for many people are shared thus lowering overall costs.
Your Lamborghini analogy is completely off the mark because there's a huge difference between a car and a plane, and it would require a huge engineering investment to redesign a car to fly. Right now the only difference between a TV streaming unit and a game console is the 3D hardware, and that extra hardware becomes irrelevant if you can stream the game (as Sony's smart TVs and bluray players already let you do with PS3 games). The marginal cost to add gaming functionality to modern streaming video units is minuscule. Replace "Apple TV" with cell phones, and "games" with PDA functionality and think about it again. That was the last big convergence - phones and PDAs converged to create today's smartphones.
What convergence are you talking about? Is there something out there for TVs that you can't already do on a console?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Does anyone really care!
Flame away.
How can they come out with a box in 2015 and not support HDMI 2.0?
All the "good" tv's are 4K now, and just to future-proof a buyer should get this, unless he really can't afford it, on any tv 50" or larger
"That's why our DVD Players don't make Toast" - hmm... but how many PS2 and PS3 sales were because they were decent DVD / Blu-Ray players? (And at the time of their release there were no cheap DVD / BD players.)
While it makes sense for Apple to continue to focus the AppleTV primarily on the streaming content market, I think they could significantly expand their potential sales through gaming. Families who buy an AppleTV primarily as an inexpensive console for casual gaming would become potential customers for impulse streaming content purchases. (It's why even the most basic STBs have PPV functions.)
I agree it would be stupid for Apple to try to make the AppleTV a competitor to the PS4 / XB1. But I do think they have severely limited sales due to the restrictions they are putting on developers. The iStore description for games could clearly indicate what controllers are required / supported. The iStore app could even check what controllers have been paired with the AppleTV and give an extra "are you sure" prompt.
IMHO Apple should have created an iDevice controller app & SDK for developers to use. Multiplayer AppleTV gaming might even drive a few iPod Touch sales.
They made their engineering choices VERY wisely. This was NOT intended to be the next PS4/XBox. It was intended to be a Set Top Box that would let a couple of family-members play fairly nice games, but as only ONE of the types of uses, not in any way the central one, which is delivering streaming entertainment through your TV.
In addiotn, by t not trying to make it a gaming console they avoid all the comparisons to dedicated consoles that the Apple TV would lose. If game makers start producing games that come close to console level Apple can easily upgrade the Apple TV to accommodate them. It's a case of ensuring you have a successful launch and then seeing where the market goes and responding to it.
IMHO Apple should have created an iDevice controller app & SDK for developers to use.
I believe I saw in the Apple TV Keynote Video at least one game that already uses an iPhone/iPod Touch as the second-player game controller.
And, no time to look it up right now; but I am nearly positive I saw an API in iOS 9 for use by Developers wanting to interact with TVOS.
They made their engineering choices VERY wisely. This was NOT intended to be the next PS4/XBox. It was intended to be a Set Top Box that would let a couple of family-members play fairly nice games, but as only ONE of the types of uses, not in any way the central one, which is delivering streaming entertainment through your TV.
In addiotn, by t not trying to make it a gaming console they avoid all the comparisons to dedicated consoles that the Apple TV would lose. If game makers start producing games that come close to console level Apple can easily upgrade the Apple TV to accommodate them. It's a case of ensuring you have a successful launch and then seeing where the market goes and responding to it.
Right. For example, when the next generation of the Apple TV uses the A9 (or later) SoC, THEN we'll see some fairly-respectable gaming abilities. But I think that the hardware design of the Apple TV was frozen before the A9 was approved for new designs.
While it makes sense for Apple to continue to focus the AppleTV primarily on the streaming content market, I think they could significantly expand their potential sales through gaming. Families who buy an AppleTV primarily as an inexpensive console for casual gaming would become potential customers for impulse streaming content purchases. (It's why even the most basic STBs have PPV functions.)
I agree it would be stupid for Apple to try to make the AppleTV a competitor to the PS4 / XB1. But I do think they have severely limited sales due to the restrictions they are putting on developers. The iStore description for games could clearly indicate what controllers are required / supported. The iStore app could even check what controllers have been paired with the AppleTV and give an extra "are you sure" prompt.
IMHO Apple should have created an iDevice controller app & SDK for developers to use. Multiplayer AppleTV gaming might even drive a few iPod Touch sales.
I think Apple is playing it pretty smart, actually.
They aren't betting the farm on AppleTV being a gaming platform, but they're preparing the ground for it nonetheless.
The remote restriction is so that people thinking about playing games on it won't be presented with nothing but titles that they can't even play.
The size restriction is to enable impulse buys without tying up the device for eons while a huge game downloads that they aren't even planning to play right away.
Once gaming has become established on AppleTV and there are plenty of games you can play out-of-the-box, they'll probably relax the restrictions on using the remote. The size restriction may stick around, but will probably be tweaked to accommodate developers just like the size of apps on iOS were initially restricted but later were allowed to get bigger.
Remember, it's always easier to relax restrictions than to add them on later. Once Apple gets a feel for how people and developers work with AppleTV they'll make some adjustments. They're just being initially cautious as usual to protect the user experience so people don't get turned off by it right out of the gate.
There are two big groups of gamers to appeal to:
1. Casual: Won't play anything on it if it requires buying more hardware. They'll just play the game on their phone or tablet like they're already doing. This group could care less about graphics and controls.
2. "Gamers": These guys are gonna buy a real console, or a PC. They're not interested in half assed attempts. Only a great exclusive game could get them to use an Apple TV for gaming.
Wait, so Apple is taking a dedicated hardware, constraining it to ONLY do what it will do well? Who's heard of that before?
THIS is why the kindle is an awesome thing and a Kindle Fire is a not-good-at-a-lot-of-things sell-you something device . . .
First, I agree with the comments saying that it's not clear that Apple cares to enter that space. They probably don't want to.
But if they do, they've got an advantage in that their update cycle is 5-7x faster than the normal console cycle. They can release a new Apple TV next year. And the year after that. They could release an Apple TV every 2 years and still have an update cycle that's 2-3x faster than Sony or Microsoft.
Can I play via my computer without some convoluted iTunes tie-in?
I don't know what is so hard about "open iTunes on remote computer".
But even if it were, you can use the Plex app on AppleTV to play media from remote systems.
Or of course you can AirPlay form any Mac or iOS device to the AppleTV to play also...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This. Apple has its guns set on competing with the all in one streaming devices NOT the console market. Anyone familiar with both can see that. The App store's race to the bottom on pricing for apps is the biggest block. It deters developers from trying to level the playing field and dig out of the freemium/99 cent hole.
Are you sure about that? 'Cuz my PS4 can already stream Netflix and Amazon Prime and I think it can stream Hulu. I'm pretty sure the PS3 could as well. And I doubt that the xBox would omit that functionality if Sony had it. The PS3 could play (some formats of) movies and music if I shared it from my computer to the network. I haven't tried that with the PS4 though because...
Imagine all the people...
My toaster oven makes Texas Toast just fine, thank you. It goes quite well with my Chef Boyardee spaghetti.
My toaster oven makes Texas Toast just fine, thank you. It goes quite well with my Chef Boyardee spaghetti.
I like the Ravioli better; but the Spaghetti and Meatballs are pretty good, too...