My prediction is that Apple has been biding their time and preparing to dominate the console gaming market. Think about it- the iPod touch and iPhone are becoming more and more robust in terms of hardware, I don't know the benchmarks but I'd wager they're close to consoles in terms of actual power. Apple has enabled "AirPlay" through AppleTV, which allows the iPhone/iPod to stream directly to the TV.
So what you have is a gaming platform that's already ubiquitous, can act as it's own controller (gyro, accelerometer, speaker, mic, vibrate, touchscreen, buttons are all built-in), and is able to stream wirelessly to any AppleTV. These devices already have a fantastic network in terms of downloading and paying for content. At this point all you need is some games to take advantage of it and you're set.
OR they could just be trying to integrate Steam into their upcoming tv. My hope is for the former though.
I've been waiting and suggesting Google to turn Google TV/Android into a "console platform" and try to take over the console market the same way they did it with phones - by getting all companies to make mini-Android consoles with high-end ARM chips that have "good enough" graphics. They could've started doing this from day one of Google TV.
Instead they still keep focusing only on the "TV" part. I think they will miss a huge opportunity here, and like you said Apple will probably turn it into another blockbuster success a year from now, and Google will only then scramble to catch-up and do the same.
It baffles me how Google can't even get these pretty obvious "visions" sometimes. Even tablets should've been a pretty predictable market coming as a sort of upgrade from smartphones, and not how Microsoft tried to do it before with a full PC OS.
I'm sure Apple had the idea for years before the iPad launch, but the first "public" suggestion for such a thing I think was Mike Arrington's idea with the Crunchpad. I think it was 2008 when he started talking about it and getting people involved. Since then I myself started thinking that I would want a "tablet" rather than a mini-laptop/netbook in many situations (couch, bed, travelling, etc). But the iPad also seems to have caught Google completely off-guard back in 2010, as it took them a full year to even release a half-baked Honeycomb OS version.
It should be interesting to see what happens when Sergey and Larry gain complete control over the company after the stock split. "Tech Dictatorship" seemed to work well under Jobs, maybe these guys will make some riskier decisions in the name of progress.
uhm.. maybe im mistaken, but i thought their current control would remain the same. the new class of stock allows them to give out more stock without losing any more control. but their current control remains as is. or am i missing something?
It was an unmitigated disaster the likes of which wouldn't be repeated until the CueCat 5 years later, but it was their first foray into the gaming market.
I think Apple has a chance of doing well and perhaps dominating the console game industry but I don't think it'll be through iPhones and iPads via AirPlay — the Apple TV already has an A5 in it with—I assume—a comparable GPU to that which drives the iPhone and iPad. Why require the battery consumption and latency of processing on a handheld? The Apple TV's only $99 and has been for many months. And iPhones and iPads don't make good controllers for lots of games, anyway.
So I'd sooner bet on an updated Apple TV (or even perhaps a software update to the existing one) and a range of purchasable, button-having controllers.
And it's possible that some games could be optionally- or even only-playable with iOS devices as controllers — an iPad coupled with an Apple TV seems able to do much of what a Wii U will be able to do.
If Apple were interested in serious gaming on iOS devices, they would've put application-assignable buttons on their edges. We all know that didn't happen, so now they have the hokey volume-control workaround for the camera's shutter release.
> Well, if we have to sell hardware we will. We have no reason to believe we’re any good at it, it’s more we think that we need to continue to have innovation and if the only way to get these kind of projects started is by us going and developing and selling the hardware directly then that’s what we’ll do. It’s definitely not the first thought that crosses our mind; we’d rather hardware people that are good at manufacturing and distributing hardware do that.
Who do we know that's good at manufacturing and selling hardware? Which company has had explosive growth in the video game sector as a platform provider in the last few years? What company famously has its eye on the television market?
Valve and Apple have priorities and incentives that align nicely for a partnership on a new console-like thing. They also seem very alike when it comes to design values.
In terms of casual gaming, the xbox 360's Kinect and Wii have already been wildly successful. One could argue that as an entertainment all in one hub, where the whole household buys casual games over the marketplace and watches TV shows and movies effortlessly, the xbox has failed.
This is the device Apple and Valve might be building. Not only are they going to try and streamline the software and UX of the whole thing to be in line with Apple's standards but I think they are also going to try to make it a replacement for cable tv. This is something Sony and Microsoft have not tried to do with their consoles, which confuses me.
Personally, I think Apple should just make a T.V. Apple has become such a strong brand that people will trust their hardware and software, even if the markup is somewhat outrageous.
> In terms of casual gaming, the xbox 360's Kinect and Wii have already been wildly successful. One could argue that as an entertainment all in one hub, where the whole household buys casual games over the marketplace and watches TV shows and movies effortlessly, the xbox has failed.
> they are also going to try to make it a replacement for cable tv. This is something Sony and Microsoft have not tried to do with their consoles, which confuses me.
Valve's main product is an app store with an ecosystem. Are you suggesting Apple would sell hardware that ships with Valve's steam/steamworks instead of their own platform?
Not about the hardware jobs but about the Psychologist (makes perfect sense) but didn't those data analysis skills make a selective field even more selective? Or is that type of thing actually becoming more common for modern psychologists?
Precisely. Valve is the place to be if you're a game dev. There's lots of other great studios around, but none have the cachet Valve does. It would be like asking why Ferrari doesn't advertise openings for automotive engineers: there aren't any, and if they were they'd find the best through people already there.
The real interesting part is that the AppleTV would surely be an ARM platform and Valve are exclusively an Intel platform. Given the price point it could easily be both.
I agree that being compatible with whatever hardware Valve is making would be pretty awesome.
Battery life isn't an issue in the home and ARM can't really do full fledged ports of the most demanding and popular AAA console titles. So I'd expect an Intel chip. It could possibly have an ARM chip too but I'd guess emulation is good enough and higher profit. Alternatively they could put in a bunch of ARM chips but iOS just makes a lot more sense on paper. With an Intel chip you gain the whole iOS library and the whole OS X library. At that point the library and capabilities may be good enough to forego other console purchases for many consumers.
Not sure if you're insinuating that they would have to emulate arm to run iOS. There is absolutely no reason it couldn't run iOS on intel chips. The iOS simulator in Xcode is exactly that. Devs would have to re-compile their apps, but I assume the screen size would be different enough they would have to do that already.
Games + Augmented Reality? Apple could be looking to buy into steam for games, but they could also be working together on some Augmented Reality hardware / software.
Apple already has Game Center on iOS (and soon OS X, with the release of Mountain Lion). And Steam's user experience on the Mac is an absolute joke -- the app is ugly and filled with serious bugs. Unless Valve starts paying attention to their OS X client, I can't see Apple supporting it anytime soon.
That's what many hoped when they announced their previous Mac Gaming push. But nothing much has come of that.
It was likely behind Steam being ported to the Mac, so it wasn't nothing. But that move hasn't borne nearly as much fruit as one might have hoped.
And the continued existence of the performance gap between OSX and win7 via bootcamp is not a good thing. Apple needs to take a much more proactive position on correcting that. Maybe the problem is with drivers, maybe it's missing frameworks, maybe it's third party developers starting with directx and not following through with an OpenGL port. Whatever it is, they ought to put more effort into correcting it.
I believe Microsoft's gaming ecosystem plays a huge part in this gap.
If you develop your game in the Microsoft world, say, for XBox, almost nothing is left by the time you're done porting to Mac OS, while porting from Mac OS to Microsoft is much easier - not perfect though.
Another interesting possibility is mobile Steam with app purchases and Appstore interoperability. It would be awesome to buy a cross platform game on Steam and get it for PC, Mac, Linux, iOS and Android all the same time. Ridiculously unlikely, I know, but I can dream.
Mobile steam is already there so it wouldn't be a huge leap.
Currently it's pointless except for the chat because, yeah I could buy that game on the go. But why?
I'll tell you why I think he was there: Apple wants a 30% cut of all sales on the Steam platform. Steam purchases will soon be required to go through Apple's in-app purchase system.
I think you're missing the point or maybe I didn't do a good enough job communicating it. I don't mean the present is different but the future may well be. If desktops turn into trucks and Apple does to consoles what they did to mobiles then Valve will certainly need Apple.
Everyone who actually uses a Mac knows that the App Store is completely optional and can be deleted. So I fail to see how Apple could force Steam to hand over ANY money.
Apple's got a history of changing the rules. I thought it was ridiculous nonsense when I heard that Apple was going to force Amazon to pay 30% for books purchased through their iPhone app too, yet here we are.
Minor nitpick, Apple has always taken a 30% cut of in-app purchases. Amazon never used in-app purchases for transactions, I believe they used to have some sort of in-app WebView that let users buy books on the amazon.com website. Apple told them they needed to either give them a 30% cut of those sales, or remove the WebView.
Well maybe you should spend more time actually knowing about the platform you're talking about.
It was ALWAYS known to developers that purchases made through iOS apps would require you to pay 30% to Apple. Whether that is Amazon, New York Times or some random game.
You don't "grow" a relationship or a company, any more than you "exist" a relationship or company. You build it. You nurture it. You foster it. It grows.
Surprised nobody has mentioned this yet: Apple is buying Valve. Creating a new "Apple Gaming" wing of the company. Valve + Steam + GameCenter + AppleTV + Steambox === AMAZING. Launches with HL3 exclusive.
Like MS did with Bungie and the Xbox, only classy and aluminum.
Saying this not because there is any evidence of this, but because I want this so bad. shutupandtakemymoney.png
For the record, if Apple buys Valve, I'll never buy another Valve game again. If they make HL3 a Mac exclusive, I'll publicly burn (nonessential parts of) my paperweight of a Mac Mini in protest.
I was thinking HL3 Exclusive to the new Apple TV / Steambox device... but only for a month or two.. then a full pc release.
I have an xbox but not an Apple TV... seems redundant as I'd mostly use the Apple TV for netflix and the Xbox already does that. If Valve releases a steambox, and Apple releases a new Apple TV I'll be in the same place I am now... But if they were the same box? Win.
As a consumer I am fundamentally opposed to exclusive distribution deals. Also, Valve is still primarily a PC gaming company. I neither own nor want any "console" other than my HTPC, desktop PC, and gaming laptop. If Valve ever treats PCs as second class citizens, I doubt I'll be alone in mourning (and protesting) the loss of one of the last great PC gaming giants to the Dark Side.
That said, a SteamBox unadulterated by Apple's shiny poison would be cool, as long as PCs get releases on the same day.
So what you have is a gaming platform that's already ubiquitous, can act as it's own controller (gyro, accelerometer, speaker, mic, vibrate, touchscreen, buttons are all built-in), and is able to stream wirelessly to any AppleTV. These devices already have a fantastic network in terms of downloading and paying for content. At this point all you need is some games to take advantage of it and you're set.
OR they could just be trying to integrate Steam into their upcoming tv. My hope is for the former though.