Xbox Founding Engineer Says Apple TV Could Destroy Console Gaming with Third-Party Apps

[extricated]

I'm sure the Apple TV will do awesome things, but without some significant interface mods, it will not "destroy" console gaming.

Sure, it could eat into the "casual" gamer revenue, but not your hardcore, headphone wearing, Call of Duty types (just an example).

Now, if we start incorporating interface devices like controllers, etc. - then we may be on to something.

[herr_neumann]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

There's your problem. You're the wrong market.

Teenage boy, sitting in his room, playing COD online with his headset and his friends. You honestly think he's going to ever do that on a tablet?

I would think laptop/whatever computer the parents bought him for school or if that hardcore of a gamer on their custom built gaming rig (which is what I did at that age).

[louis Fashion]

Now if we could only destroy COMCAST and the bundle business model.

[TMar]

Originally Posted by herr_neumann

Are you saying currently there is not a casual game market for consoles? If so, is that not a huge untapped market? Small games I can come back to when I have 10-15 min to kill.

I have a Wii, PS3 and XBox 360, but hardly using anything but the PS3 and generally that is for streaming Hulu. I wish I had the time to spend a few hours at a time progressing through a game like I used to, but I don't.

Again to sit down in front of a TV is a commitment. It's why there's not any 10-15 TV shows. It's a very small market for people who will get tired of the full game they are playing that will jump to the consoles 'dashboard' to play a quick simple game before going back to a full game. Not saying there isn't a market, I've bought some. The standout being a cornhole game that was good for extended periods of time only with people but again it's because it was on off as it was winner stay so there was downtime.

You're like the majority, the people who don't have time. That's why mobile gaming is a huge as it is. I enjoy golf while I don't have the time to play as often as I like and that doesn't make me a 'golfer' since I make it out a couple times a year. Could I find more time to do it? Sure but that takes away from other things. Is it wicker to go play mini-golf? Sure I could find more time to do that so I could do it more often. Does that make me more of a golfer? If I carried a club and a few balls around and took a couple of swings when I'm out and bored did I play golf?

[herr_neumann]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Apple wouldn't do this. For Apple its a case of buy one with X storage for this price, or X storage for this price. I highly doubt their upgrade solution for a console would be 'just plug in a USB hard drive'.

But what about "x" storage and using the Time Capsule as a local server for additional? I agree they wont want you to plug in any USB drive, but cross selling a Time Capsule to reinforce the 'halo effect" seems very Apple.

[Xalde]

Sorry no time to read through the other posts yet, so if this has been mentioned my apologies.

Just wanted to comment that the consoles may just destroy themselves. The rumor that the new XBox will have a mandatory always-online to "prevent piracy", and essentially tie the game to that console so that you cannot sell it or play a used copy of the game (kinda two rumors merged into one here). Also the rumors that the new Playstation may do the same thing.

Who knows if/when Nintendo boards that ship, but right now they're a pain because games you buy on the virtual console aren't tied your account like iTunes purchases are, they're instead tied to the system. Lose your system = screwed of $$$ worth of games, unless you dance the helpline dance.

[swagi]

Given the fact that there are real successful independent devs on PSN and XBox Live Arcade I call BS on this story.

If a game shows great dedication and is well designed, it may be successful even though there is no big studio behind it. Take "Limbo" and "Journey" as an example.

Great Indie games and if you missed them - shame on you.

[Mabus51]

Originally Posted by herr_neumann

And why do you need all 16GB at once? An initial dl of ~1GB (arbitrary number, 500MB? I don't know what the right number is.) with background 50-100MB downloads as you progress seems to be a logical way to get around this. Why store data you do not need?

Huh

Steam, Playstation, X-Box, Origin, etc etc have no trouble delivering 16GB from their stores to users. So why would Apple have trouble doing it?

[Lightey]

lol. Go die. Whoever wrote this article knows NOTHING about gaming. Apple doesn't know crap about gaming. iPhone games are NOT real games. Angry Birds is not a game, it's a distraction.

[jeremiah256]

Originally Posted by Mike Valmike

Why would they do this, when Apple would be, in one fell swoop, handing Sony (and M$) one of their most cherished objectives on a silver platter? By which I refer to the elimination of the used video game market. Far more than half of all physical console media sales are used, so even if prices dropped by 50% (which they wouldn't), Sony and M$ and the rest would see revenue go up sharply. Especially considering how the demand curve works. I forget where I read it, and the recent articles on the topic are spamming over my Google-fu, but apparently an X360 game bought new will be resold something like 6.4 times before scratches and disinterest attrition it away.

Hardcore gamers will pay more for a console with more guts, and it's an entire separate market from where Apple is targeting. This has always been true. In 1983, hardcorers discarded Atari 2600 shovelware and spent billions of quarters in arcades. In 1993, they let the plebes have their Genesis/SNES while they bought a Neo Geo. In 2003, they modded and tweaked their Xboxen and bought immersive deluxe controllers and accessories for costs approaching that of another console (Steel Battalion, anyone?). In 2013, they'll buy the X720/PS4 and play Hero's Duty 7 with glee while one hundred million proletarians have a blast playing Sugar Rush 2 or Rock Band 5 on the ATV4.

Interesting points about how the used game market works.

My admittedly unprofessional guess is that if the used game market were to disappear, it would have a negative effect on the number/percentage of hard core gamers unless prices were drastically reduced. Maybe, as you believe, this would be offset in the short term by the increased revenue since gamers would have no other choice. I wonder what would be the long term effect since these consoles' update periods are so long and media appliance devices like Roku, AppleTV and Google devices are constantly being updated and upgraded.

[herr_neumann]

Originally Posted by Mabus51

Huh

Steam, Playstation, X-Box, Origin, etc etc have no trouble delivering 16GB from their stores to users. So why would Apple have trouble doing it?

Was responding to the storage issue. If you look at the iPad storage model, 16GB games fill your HD pretty quick. Though, if you can use you Time Capsule (as I just responded to someone else) as local storage then this issue is negated.

[Lightey]

Originally Posted by ghost187

If Apple opened up an App Store for Apple TV, and made a wireless controller for all iOS devices than yes, XBOX, Playstation, and Nintendo would die within a few short years. Why? 99c games with real "button" controls will satisfy 90% of Gamers, 99% of Wallets, and 100% of Parents . Plus, Apple TV only costs $99 and it would be updated every year so even if PS4 and XBOX 720 will be significantly more powerful on day 1, it won't be for 5-8 years (usual life cycle of gaming systems).

Please go learn about gaming. No one wants Apple monopolizing yet another market and dictating what games can and cannot release on it.

You're another iSheep.
Parents are stupid.
Real gamers know better.

[Mabus51]

Originally Posted by herr_neumann

Was responding to the storage issue. If you look at the iPad storage model, 16GB games fill your HD pretty quick. Though, if you can use you Time Capsule (as I just responded to someone else) as local storage then this issue is negated.

Yeah sorry about that herr I meant to quote another user that you responded to

"Originally Posted by rmwebs
Games like LA Noire for example take up 16GB Space minimum. Distributing games like that over an AppStore is just not feasible."

This exact distribution takes place daily by many digital stores. It would be no different for Apple and it is very feasible to do.

[portishead]

Originally Posted by Lightey

Please go learn about gaming. No one wants Apple monopolizing yet another market and dictating what games can and cannot release on it.

You're another iSheep.
Parents are stupid.
Real gamers know better.

Here's oversimplifying the issue, but he has valid points. No need for name calling. I think Apple could do well in the gaming market. Apple isn't monopolizing anything, but if they do something well I don't see any reason why they can't be successful doing it.

[Aeolius]

Originally Posted by Lightey

Whoever wrote this article knows NOTHING about gaming. Apple doesn't know crap about gaming. iPhone games are NOT real games. Angry Birds is not a game, it's a distraction.

I think it's entirely subjective. I don't like "gun games" or games where the focus is solely combat. The only console game I've played in the past 3 years was "Endless Ocean". These days, if I want to play a "real game" I play D&D via IRC.

[Henriok]

Originally Posted by jeremiah256

Sony, especially, could strike back by using their media empire to hurt iTunes by removing their music and movies..

OR… they could actually embrace the things at Sony that make actual money.. like their content business. Instead of sinking money into the endless black hole that is their game console business.

[mchart]

Originally Posted by Lightey

lol. Go die. Whoever wrote this article knows NOTHING about gaming. Apple doesn't know crap about gaming. iPhone games are NOT real games. Angry Birds is not a game, it's a distraction.

So by all measure that means you suggest that Gabe Newell knows nothing about gaming?

Tell us; What experiance in the gaming industry do you have. Even if you were involved in some capacity you didn't create the largest and most successful PC game delivery service nor are you an industry leader.

[SmileyBlast!]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Game performance when the game is stored on a NAS would be horribly slow.

Have you noticed how long it takes to load new levels from the CD on an xBox?
I think Gigabit LAN transfer speeds are comparable.
Admittedly the TV games would have to have modest memory requirements.

But I think most do.

The benefit of Gaming on the TV is you get to relax with your TV set and couch with friends. Really affordable games as well as the article and commenters have pointed out.

[patsfan83]

Originally Posted by ghettochris

specs are irrelevant to many people, just the result. You can make good looking games on iPhone/ipad now, so whatever they would release would probably be even more powerful than that, which is more than good enough for many games and people. Sure, it might not be able to do quite as complex a render as a console, but they won't have to work too hard to be able to own 1080p60. I don't see a problem unless they bust out with a 4k TV... which i'm hoping they do somehow. 1080p is pathetic. any true gamer should be gaming on a PC at higher resolutions than that anyway.

Why is 1080p pathetic? If you knew anything about viewing distance relative to screen size you'd know that 1080p is more than adequate for most situations.

Let's assume you have a 50" TV and sit 10' from it. You would need a 100" TV before it would be worth having anything about 1080p resolution.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1...o-screen-size/

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

There's your problem. You're the wrong market.

Teenage boy, sitting in his room, playing COD online with his headset and his friends. You honestly think he's going to ever do that on a tablet?

You really think that said boy is typical of the console market? Seriously? I hate to tell you, but that doesn't hold up when you look at the actual numbers.

And you really think that he actually cares what platform he's on so long as it lets him play COD with his friends? Sure, there's a portion of the console market that will buy (or beg the parents to buy) a particular console *solely* based on the name of the manufacturer. But that's a *very* small portion of the console market. Most buy based on the games that are available. Those people follow the games. If the next COD was an exclusive for iOS (iPad/TV) (admittedly unlikely at this stage), they'd buy one.

Furthermore, the 'hardcore' FPS gamer market is a small fraction of the overall gamer market. Believe it or not, you don't have to cater to the hardcore market in order to sell hardware or software. Worse, catering solely to that market drives up costs, all while it reduces sales. Game developers have discovered that over the years, and that's actually what's driven a *lot* of the indie and/or mobile development studios to be created by groups of developers who have left AAA studios.

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

Originally Posted by jwm2

Its an older version of the game but its still a valid point. As technology gets better, faster and smaller we are able to do things with tiny devices what used to take giant consoles to pull off. The days of 100 million dollar games are behind us. A few will come out from time to time but the money is quickly shifting into the mobile marketplace. I'm just shocked that a company with dreams of combining an ipod with a phone is the one who is leading the charge.

mp3 players were combined with phones long before apple "dreamnt" up the iPhone

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by Xalde

Just wanted to comment that the consoles may just destroy themselves. The rumor that the new XBox will have a mandatory always-online to "prevent piracy", and essentially tie the game to that console so that you cannot sell it or play a used copy of the game (kinda two rumors merged into one here). Also the rumors that the new Playstation may do the same thing.

This will make zero difference for probably over 90% of the Xbox and PS users.

[SAD*FACED*CLOWN]

Originally Posted by Henriok

OR… they could actually embrace the things at Sony that make actual money.. like their content business. Instead of sinking money into the endless black hole that is their game console business.

sony does quite well worldwide with their console, just leave America once or twice and you see this

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Graphics aren't any better than the PC version. The controls on the iPad version are horrible though.

If the "graphics aren't any better than the PC version", then they're already *better* than a console version. PCs invariably have more RAM for storing models and textures than consoles do. Even when equipped with 'crappy' integrated GPUs.

[blackhand1001]

Originally Posted by mchart

I made an account just to reply to this message. It is wrong on so many levels, and demonstrates an inept understanding of what this benchmark is representing.

I will be very brief. Most will understand what i'm getting at promptly.

You've basically shown us a benchmark demonstrating CPU capability. Not GPU prowess. The benchmark would be relevant had it shown competing systems both with an I5 and then the iGPU vs. the PowerVR GPU.

The simple fact is that a game like World of Warcraft is more heavily impacted by CPU prowess. The inept Atom which is an ultra low power x86 implementation is what is holding those two powerVR systems back.

In the case of Apple (A5/A5X) they are capable of pushing current-gen console quality graphics at this point in time. Not many games use this power though. The soon to be released Real Racing 3 is about the only game to make use of this increased compute power.

I won't bother going into further detail why this is possible. It doesn't require much thought. The point is that the series of benchmarks you linked to does not support your opinion.

Its a dual core atom which is faster than any arm chip on the market right now.