Apple games console

[whooleytoo]

I dont see anything thats missing in the market. Nobody wants a shiny white box that costs more than everything else anyway.

Apple are thriving in a recession market, by selling boxes/devices that cost more than everything else. Don't underestimate the power of design, and marketing to attract buyers. Plus, unless it's a complete lemon, millions of Apple fans would buy it, not to mention give Apple tens of millions worth of free advertising though word-of-mouth.

The only likely console though, IMO, is bringing iPhone games to a new AppleTV, perhaps with an accelerometer controller for games which require it.

 

[0098386]

More like - it's a kick in the teeth to hardcore gamers; who are probably in the minority.

It's not just hardcore gamers. I run games (mostly Source engine games) off a 2006 iMac, the lowest ping I get is 50ms and the lowest average is around 40-70ms. When you play offline on 0ms it's a breath of fresh air. Could you imagine trying to play an action game, something that relies on twitch reactions on something that has 50ms input latency and a further 50ms server latency?

To use the cliched car analogy - it would be like driving on rails. You decide when to set off but you're fixed to a predetermined path. Whereas with a petrol/electric car you can go anywhere.

 

[whooleytoo]

It's not just hardcore gamers. I run games (mostly Source engine games) off a 2006 iMac, the lowest ping I get is 50ms and the lowest average is around 40-70ms. When you play offline on 0ms it's a breath of fresh air. Could you imagine trying to play an action game, something that relies on twitch reactions on something that has 50ms input latency and a further 50ms server latency?

Well, I'm assuming any such streaming console would have enough local storage to buffer textures/world-data etc.; and as such shouldn't suffer from latency any more than any other console.

If it didn't have such buffer storage, it certainly would be unfeasible.

 

[Bimbalbamble]

Can i just add, the converstion seems to be using todays tech in the discusion. My idea's where for about 10 years time...

When i would think the problems you are discussing should be overcome..

 

[whooleytoo]

Can i just add, the converstion seems to be using todays tech in the discusion. My idea's where for about 10 years time...

When i would think the problems you are discussing should be overcome..

Not really. Bandwidth will increase enormously over the next 10 years, but as more people are streaming 1080p video and download multi-GB games, demand could well keep pace with supply. It's all well and good having a relatively low contention ratio on your broadband, but what's also important is how many of the other users occasionally browser the web & check email and facebook; and how many don't have a TV package, and so are streaming 1080p video and 5:1 audio all evening.

Plus, unless there's some breakthough in the world of physics, latency won't improve much. That means you will still need some fast local storage.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Bandwidth will increase dramatically over the next 10 years i predict (maybe the US will finally catch up to Japan, lol), but so will videogames. 10 years ago we were all playing games like Ape Escape which was probably about 500mb on disc. Today we are playing games at 10gb+. In another 10 years we may see games at 100gb each. Its probably safe to assume that game size and bandwidth will scale somewhat equally so i dont see streaming games to be feasible unless something massive comes along and changes everything.

 

[No1451]

Not really. Bandwidth will increase enormously over the next 10 years, but as more people are streaming 1080p video and download multi-GB games, demand could well keep pace with supply. It's all well and good having a relatively low contention ratio on your broadband, but what's also important is how many of the other users occasionally browser the web & check email and facebook; and how many don't have a TV package, and so are streaming 1080p video and 5:1 audio all evening.

Plus, unless there's some breakthough in the world of physics, latency won't improve much. That means you will still need some fast local storage.

This, unless we move to something faster than the wiring being used today we really won't be seeing ping times reducing. Even assuming that they could, what benefit to the companies to roll out billions of dollars of new cable? There are very very few applications that require ultra-low latencies, there just wouldn't be a market that warrants it.


Barring the tech area, WHY would Apple get into this? Consoles don't make profit(rather, the hardware doesn't) and since everything they sell is known to have a fair margin to it I just do not see them jumping into anything other than the casual(ie: portable) gaming scene.

Beyond all that, imagine if Apple WAS in charge of games? Jesus, we see enough ridiculous rejections for Apps on the iPhone, imagine what they would say to a videogame where you go on killing sprees or blow up tons of random soldiers.

 

[0098386]

When i would think the problems you are discussing should be overcome..

Even optical networks carry a lag. Unless time and space can be bent over backwards in the next 10 years - streaming wont work.
And unless Apples constant design philosophy of charging a lot for little changes in the next 10 years, I can't see them competing with the likes of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo.