Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,537
30,844



Award-winning first-person shooting game BioShock is making the transition to iOS later this summer, developer 2K Games tells Engadget. Originally launched in 2007, the game kicked off a trio of successful titles in the series, which is available on several platforms including PC, Mac, and consoles.

bioshock_ios.jpg
While taking BioShock to iOS is a big move for the series, Engadget calls the experience "subpar" as the visuals have been reduced in quality to fit within Apple's app size requirements for the App Store. In addition the device size itself simply makes the game feel "distinctly less immersive". The game does, however, play well if users can adapt to the on-screen touch screen controls or take advantage of an external Bluetooth gamepad.

An exact launch date for the iOS version BioShock is yet to be announced, and 2K Games says it will carry "premium" pricing with no extra downloadable content.

Article Link: 'BioShock' Coming to iOS Later This Summer
 

tevion5

macrumors 68000
Jul 12, 2011
1,966
1,600
Ireland
Apple should take notice here. The last console they made, the Pippin, had barely 100 games for it and was awful in general. Nobody would develop for it.

The iOS platform today has people throwing themselves at it in all ways. The fact that 2K are porting a major contemporary console game mean that the Apple TV could easily fill in a simple casual/serious gaming niche that Nintendo have wholeheartedly lost with the disasterous Wii U.

With media content to rival the Xbox, and a developer community that nobody can beat, Apple could use the Apple TV to gain significant market share in the Console market.
 

Cougarcat

macrumors 604
Sep 19, 2003
7,766
2,553
I wonder when Apple will increase the App size limits. Mantle can only do so much when visuals are limited because of app size. The expansion to xcom couldn't come to iOS because of App size.

Not interested if it doesn't have a decent wireless controller.

It says it works with Bluetooth controllers. Don't know if there are any good ones out there yet, though. Apple should really just natively support console controllers.
 
Last edited:

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Sep 27, 2013
2,247
889
They should also have made a Bioshock game for PS Vita. I mean it has sold just as many units as the PS4, even though it has been out for twice as long. And the Vitas sales per year is equal to that of the Xbox One. Why the hell is Sony classing it as a failure.
 

sonicrobby

macrumors 68020
Apr 24, 2013
2,482
526
New Orleans
This game with touch controls?


HHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Right? its going to be terrible to play. Maybe it would be alright with a bluetooth controller. But if anyone is playing this on iOS, they cant be that serious about getting the full experience of it anyway. Might be a good gateway to get new users to buy it for a good platform though.
 

GizmoDVD

macrumors 68030
Oct 11, 2008
2,599
5,005
SoCal
They should also have made a Bioshock game for PS Vita. I mean it has sold just as many units as the PS4, even though it has been out for twice as long. And the Vitas sales per year is equal to that of the Xbox One. Why the hell is Sony classing it as a failure.

Vita came out a year and a half before the Xbox One. Trying to compare the two isn't really fair. Not to mention the Vita is all but dead in America but doing OK in Japan. There is a reason why Sony is calling it's set-top box due out in a few months the 'Playstation TV' and not 'Vita TV' in America.

Keep in mind we were all teased with a new exclusive Bioshock game before the Vita launched. It never happened (and never will).
 

Planey28

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2010
474
576
Birmingham, UK
Apple should take notice here. The last console they made, the Pippin, had barely 100 games for it and was awful in general. Nobody would develop for it.

The iOS platform today has people throwing themselves at it in all ways. The fact that 2K are porting a major contemporary console game mean that the Apple TV could easily fill in a simple casual/serious gaming niche that Nintendo have wholeheartedly lost with the disasterous Wii U.

With media content to rival the Xbox, and a developer community that nobody can beat, Apple could use the Apple TV to gain significant market share in the Console market.

A gaming apple TV may appeal to a few casual gamers, but no "core" gamers are going to buy it; most casual gamers probably won't either as they'll be happy enough with their iPad/iPhone. The Wii U is a different story and has performed poorly for a number of reasons, not solely iOS gaming.

Bioshock is going to be terrible on iOS... it was designed to be played with a controller/mouse and keyboard.
 

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
9,560
6,059
Why?

Maybe when it goes free or $1 Ill take a look. Were talking a 20+ hour game.

... You want to pay $1 or less for over 20 hours of gameplay. That's insane. The typical rate is about $2/hour of gameplay. Some have lower prices, some hit $6/hour, but what you're saying is about 1/40th of a typical price. It'd be a complete steal at that price.
 

Iconoclysm

macrumors 68040
May 13, 2010
3,141
2,570
Washington, DC
They should also have made a Bioshock game for PS Vita. I mean it has sold just as many units as the PS4, even though it has been out for twice as long. And the Vitas sales per year is equal to that of the Xbox One. Why the hell is Sony classing it as a failure.

Vita has been out for more like four or five times as long as the PS4...and is considered to be selling poorly enough that Sony is no longer going to devote resources towards creating new games for it.

Xbox One hasn't even been out for a year so how could you make that sort of comparison? The Vita's sales spiked then declined steadily for 2.5 years...the Xbox One hasn't even had its first holiday...and the company behind Xbox One can afford to push a console even if it's doing poorly for now.
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,927
105
They should also have made a Bioshock game for PS Vita. I mean it has sold just as many units as the PS4, even though it has been out for twice as long. And the Vitas sales per year is equal to that of the Xbox One. Why the hell is Sony classing it as a failure.

I totally agree. My first thought when I read this was "Meh...I want a Bioshock game for Vita".

I haven't played it yet, but own Borderlands 2 for Vita. From what I've heard it's a very solid port. The frame rate I guess is normally 30FPS but does get dicey sometimes, but mostly they just had to simplify some background stuff and make enemies disappear after you kill them. The game's like 98% there (including the expansions!) which is awesome.

I'd love Bioshock, Fallout: New Vegas or something like that...

Heck, Vita even has more RAM than PS3/360!
 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Sep 27, 2013
2,247
889
Vita has been out for more like four or five times as long as the PS4...and is considered to be selling poorly enough that Sony is no longer going to devote resources towards creating new games for it.

Xbox One hasn't even been out for a year so how could you make that sort of comparison? The Vita's sales spiked then declined steadily for 2.5 years...the Xbox One hasn't even had its first holiday...and the company behind Xbox One can afford to push a console even if it's doing poorly for now.

The PS Vita and PS4's are now on par at just over 8.5 million each. The PS Vita has been out for two years, the PS4 one year. The Xbox has been out for one year and has sold shy of 5 million. At that time, the Vita was the same.
 

mazz0

macrumors 68040
Mar 23, 2011
3,132
3,579
Leeds, UK
Agreed, it'll be dreadful with touch controls as all such things are, but with a MFI controller hat makes sense. Agreed though, that for games like this to make sense the storage capacities on the iPads need to increase.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
Right? its going to be terrible to play. Maybe it would be alright with a bluetooth controller. But if anyone is playing this on iOS, they cant be that serious about getting the full experience of it anyway. Might be a good gateway to get new users to buy it for a good platform though.

I would say the reverse: BETTER with touch than with a console controller. IF the controls are done well, which can be done for an IOS touch-based FPS. (Aiming in the NOVA series for instance, and others that take a less traditional control approach.)

To each their own, of course—people learn to live with console controllers in FPS games. They love them! I know that. But here's why I say it could (and should) be better:

• Console controllers have always been the wrong solution for FPSs. A necessary evil to deliver a popular genre. The precision of mouse—DIRECT aiming—is superior and just plain more fun. Joystick control is so much worse that FPS games use auto-aim to compensate. But I want to play a game myself, without training wheels. Having the game "play itself a little" to compensate for bad controls is just less fun. (Albeit comfortable in the hands, I will grant you! And the movement side of a controller can be superior to WASD; but aiming is far more central. Put it this way: WASD isn't bad enough to make the game auto-walk for you. Aiming on a stick IS that bad.)

• Example: try using a console joystick to navigate the an arrow cursor around your desktop computer screen (or even a game menu with giant targets). Awful. You wish for a real pointer. Aiming a weapon is the same thing.

• There are other ways to get the same direct level of aiming: a trackball, trackpad, gyroscopes, gestures, etc. If done well, the weapon moves the way you move—just as with a mouse.

• Swiping to aim the camera on a touchscreen is one such method. Direct aiming much like a very accurate trackpad, and equivalent to what you do with a mouse: Want to aim a little up? Move your thumb/finger/hand a little up. (Rather than nudging the joystick a little up, holding it just the right amount, and letting go at the right moment while auto-aim holds your hand.)

So, I consider mouse superior to touchscreen (a little), but both superior to a joystick—for aiming in an FPS.

This title could be great or a mess. I have hope!

What device people choose to buy this game for won't be a matter of how "serious" the gamer is about the Bioshock franchise (why does that matter?)—it will be about what device they use and have with them. And if it's an iPad, they'll be enjoying a nice sized screen with portability and sofa-comfort that a laptop can't match.
 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Sep 27, 2013
2,247
889
I totally agree. My first thought when I read this was "Meh...I want a Bioshock game for Vita".

I haven't played it yet, but own Borderlands 2 for Vita. From what I've heard it's a very solid port. The frame rate I guess is normally 30FPS but does get dicey sometimes, but mostly they just had to simplify some background stuff and make enemies disappear after you kill them. The game's like 98% there (including the expansions!) which is awesome.

I'd love Bioshock, Fallout: New Vegas or something like that...

Heck, Vita even has more RAM than PS3/360!

Borderlands 2 wasn't even all that good a port. There was a single location in the whole map that resulted in around 18fps but that was it, it usually sat just under 30. You have to remember that not all the visual downgrades of Borderlands 2 on the Vita are to do with power. The biggest problem is the memory card they come on can only hold around 3.4GB. Compressing all the textures results in a lower quality looking game, as well as slower loading times due to uncompressing time.

Vita's power is shown much better in other titles though. Killzone is amazing on the Vita and holds 30fps consistently like the PS3 versions. The upcoming Minecraft game for Vita is the full PS3 version (and I guess it will just be a shorter render distance if there is any drawbacks). Uncharted looks great but can suffer from a few frame rate drops due to too much being on screen but that was both rare and hard to notice. LBP on the Vita has everything LBP 2 had on PS3 as well as more things for creative mode, and even ran at a higher frame rate than the PS3 version.

Comparing PS3 and PS Vita games should only really be done if both the games were developed by the same people. Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing Transformed looks almost exactly the same (and it looks like one of the best Vita games! watch: http://youtu.be/RY1yzz4a5fA). NFS Most Wanted was also a very good game for the Vita, the small visual downgrade was due to the 3.4GB file limit, and the only downgrade due to power was a smaller car count. MGS HD collection on the PS Vita looks just as good as the PS3 version but runs at 30fps instead of 60. It should be noted that the PS3 version dips a lot where as the PS Vita version sticks at 30 all the time.

I really do mean it when I say it is my most favourite console though. Playing PS3 quality games on my Vita, along with playing all my amazing PS1 games on it.
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,927
105

Great points!

To the "touch screen beats real controllers" guy...you're doing to have a hard time convincing people of that, to put it mildly.

It's fine for certain types of games, maybe even roughly equal, but FPS and the like aren't those types of games LOL
 

g-7

macrumors 6502
Feb 14, 2006
403
100
Poland
Console controllers have always been the wrong solution for FPSs. A necessary evil to deliver a popular genre. The precision of mouse—DIRECT aiming—is superior and just plain more fun.

This.

I tried playing FPSes with a controller, it was a nightmare. Nothing beats keyboard+mouse combo. An emulated controller on a touch screen is even worse.

I'm a great fan of Deus Ex series, played all the parts multiple times (well, all two parts, as Invisible War is like Jar Jar Binks, best to pretend it never happened). I have bought Deus Ex: The Fall for iPad, as I was curious about the plot development, but couldn't finish it. Not because it was too hard. No, it just felt awkward and was no fun to play. First person perspective games really need a mouse to feel "right".

Or maybe I'm just getting old. ;)
 

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
I don't see this translating to touch controls very well, but I guess we'll see. Or maybe a controller is a requirement?
 

Menel

Suspended
Aug 4, 2011
6,351
1,356
Why?

Maybe when it goes free or $1 Ill take a look. Were talking a 20+ hour game.
Oh joy.

People want amazing games, but they want to pay Angry Birds prices. :|



Several blast this Gizmo. But I feel the same way.

I've bought many 'premium' titles and do prefer it. Every Infinity Blade on release day, FTL, The Room, Plague Inc, Broken Age, Galaxy on Fire 2, Battleheart, Botanicula etc etc.

But this port... that I've already played... that is graphics reduced... and controller handicapped... just does not excite. I didn't buy the GTA's either for the same reason.

A sub-par adaptation of an experience I've already had... is not enticing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.