With that logic we can also give a hearty slap on the back to the narcotics industry, the US prison system and the Catholic Church.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple 'Netflix for Games' Subscription Service May Be Shown Monday
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
With that logic we can also give a hearty slap on the back to the narcotics industry, the US prison system and the Catholic Church.
Any vitamin or health supplement only available via subscription is hiding something very nefarious. Healthy food has always been the same. No subscription required. (Goes for dogs too).
You nailed it. I recently did a subscription purge because I was constantly getting text messages from my credit card company that a charge had been placed on my card for (DropBox, Microsoft Office, Apple Music, numerous app subscriptions, etc.). I understand developers wanting to have a continual stream of income rather than a "one and done" model. However, the incremental nature of $3, $5 and $10 subscriptions really add up over time and all of a sudden you realize you have $50 (or more) in monthly subscriptions.
I dropped all but the most essential subscriptions (DropBox, a VPN, and Microsoft Office). I will give the paid news subscription a try but I will pass on the gaming subscription.
It's a perfectly valid comparison.
Mobile gaming is popular because of convenience, ease of access and it's ability to be consumed in short intervals throughout the day.
Not sure why you're ranting about 'elitist snobs'.
No PC graphics card is compared with synthetic benchmarks, most testing is done by the card playing the same games at the same settings, and the FPS measured with different features turned on and off. Or running the games GPU test which is the same thing. They aren’t synthetic benchmarks.
Is the A chip powerful, of course it is, but that’s running all tasks, at the launch of the new iPad Pro Apple claimed it was as powerful as an Xbox One. Not more powerful, and yet the last time I checked the Switch is running some of the same graphically demanding games it does, so if anything the A series has only just caught up with the X1 in games performance:
http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2018/10/30/apple-says-the-new-ipad-pro-is-as-powerful-as-an-xbox-one-s
But your claim is the A chip is MUCH more powerful and has been for years:
If it is why is it Apple made their claim for the A12X only? Because your argument would make the A series chip much more powerful then an Xbox One considering the Switch is running the same games.
You are seeing specs on paper, watching synthetic benchmarks and making a claim that you haven’t provided proof to back up.
In part this is why game streaming services are becoming a thing, because your iOS device lacks the power to run the games.
Game streaming is the way forward because mobile devices cannot match the power of PC’s or games consoles, the next fen will be our this year or next and the A series chip will Ben left generations behind. The same can be said if an X2 is launched.
Hmm I’ve made an argument why Apples service in this story is rubbish, it won’t iffer game streaming but just a new revenue stream for games, we gain nothing in reality and the publisher gains a lot. And the majority of games on the App Store are freemium rubbish that this story claims won’t be covered by the new service.
Last edited:
I’m sure it’s a great “mobile” game to pass the time and kill a few minutes here and there.
And as far as I’m concerned that’s all mobile games should be and strive to be.
They should be quick to start playing, fun and cheap... no big developer is going to spend their money coding an epic sized game for touch device..
It just simply isn’t worth it. iOS and gaming shouldn’t even be in the same sentence.
I think you have it backwards.
By definition, any subscription-based service would want to cast its net wide and target as many users as possible. The biggest variable for any company offering such a service is the quality of the hardware the customers have. Some might be running high-end gaming PCs, others might be limping by on an aging netbook. As such, when you have no control over the hardware, it makes sense to remove that variable from the equation by having the games run from the cloud, so that anyone will be able to subscribe to your service regardless of how powerful their PC is (or not).
Conversely, Apple makes the hardware their software and services run on. Every mobile device dating back to the 5s and iPad mini 2 run 64-bit processors with fairly powerful GPUs. Apple knows the capabilities of their mobile devices out in the wild, and is aware that even the oldest iPhone 5s will still be able to run a fair number of iOS game titles. For instance, Implosion is a quality AAA game which I had no problems running on my 5s in tandem with a MFI game controller.
It also allows Apple to skirt around their greatest limitation - poor cloud services, while leveraging on there already being so many games in the App Store. All the infrastructure is already there, even the ability to track how long you play (seems like it will leverage on screen time) to determine how much to pay out to developers.
Each company simply competes according to their relative strengths.
This isn't entirely true because apple's SoC is passively cooled while the Switch has an active cooling system. From what we've seen the A12X already outperforms the switch not only in GPU performance but overall. If apple were to build an A12x device with active cooling then they'd be apple to pull of some pretty impressive visuals for the form factor.
Of course this all depends on price, The 11" iPad Pro is over double the price of the switch but it's difficult to compare prices considering it has a significantly better display and a whole host of other things the switch doesn't.
Have you ever ran a benchmark on an iOS or Android device before? The graphics portion is not just some synthetic test where they crunch numbers and spit out a result. They are literally mini versions of games where scenes of different complexities are rendered at multiple resolutions and detail settings and then measuring the FPS.
Interesting you mentioned Doom and Wolfenstein previously.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-dooms-impossible-switch-port-analysed
https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/digitalfoundry-2018-wolfenstein-2-switch-tech-analysis
In short, both games are playable, but required dumbing down the graphics in order to work. Again showing the limitations of the Switch processor and what “tricks” they needed to perform to get the game to work.
It appears you find it upsetting to realize that Apple processors are superior to every other mobile device out there, including the Switch. That’s the only reason I can think of that would cause you to jump through hoops (and failing miserably) to try and make Apple processors appear less capable than they are. That would also explain you going off topic and ranting about things completely unrelated to processor performance. Or maybe you’re a big fan of the Switch and will defend it against anything.
Regardless, the Switch uses a slower, inferior processor to what Apple has available. This is an absolute truth.
That would seem to sound good on paper and they used to. But Apple wants people updating asap. People are used to free OS updates now.
We all understand how services work and how they are different from physical items. Some people have difficulty evaluating services they do not use and simply cancelling them just like others have difficulty evaluating if they really even need a physical product before buying it. It’s the same mentality either way and they both lead to debt and other financial problems.
You forgot to mention that Switch games are vastly more fun than their Microsoft and Sony counterparts. If you told me you purchased a Switch for Doom I would laugh, but if you said it was for any first party title I would completely understand. PC gaming is the definitive option when it comes to performance but no one understands games like Nintendo. What they are able to do with dated technology blows my mind. If Apple can get someone who truly understands mobile gaming on their devices than they will continue printing billions.
No thanks.
I want to play my games without an internet connection, mobile or console. Streaming is the Holy Grail for old men that don’t play games and run gaming companies. Downloadable games w/ subscription (Xbox GamePass) is much more desirable and is the underdog I think will come out on top in the end.
Game streaming services have tried (and failed) to captivate a large audience. Unlike Netflix and other video content, gaming cannot be buffered. People don’t want to deal with “slow connection” indicators, they want their games to “just work”. When everyone has access to gigabit Ethernet or stable nationwide 5G, there may be a chance. For now, it’s a corporate pipe dream.
Apple could have done this years ago when they built an entire ecosystem that was perfect for quality mobile gaming that people could take serious, especially after sony's **** up in mobile gaming with their constant fighting against homebrew instead of embracing it and being the first company to release an app store model. Unfortunately while apple had all the pieces it was their own poor management of the platform and nonsensical handing of things like controllers that ruined their chances, leading to the rise of freemium mobile junk.
As much as i would have loved to see them actually focus on gaming for the iPhone/iPad i've mostly given up. The switch is significantly weaker but as you say, They have games worth playing which drives developers to want to release even more games worth playing on the system.
Pretty much the only game i play on iOS now is Stardew Valley which IMO the mobile version played on a 12.9" iPad pro is the best experience possible for that game.
Apple execs just don't "get" gaming and even a skilled hire won't do much good because they'd face an uphill struggle trying to get the execs to understand.
Did the same, got rid of every streaming service except prime. Still giving dish network $140, t mobile $70, local cable company $50 for internet, PlayStation $5
That wasnt supposed to be offensive, I meant it is literally cheap in terms of production cost. the current SOC costed $45 in 2016 when they launched, in current day after several production runs it should cost less than half of that, yet Switch cost has gone up not down. It hasnt got an upgrade in 2 yrs, the Quad A53 cores was released in 2015 are the same as Raspberry Pi and other Quad A57 core are from Tegra X1 which is 3 generation old, also it is underclocked at 1.02GHz. It qualifies all the markers of cheap!
On a funny side note, the prices of Switch games havent gone down even after 2 yrs, and they refuse to reduce the price of old titles. On average their games are twice as expensive as new titles in PS. Nintendo's hardware is not even close to what Apple fits in its iPhones, yet Apple quite literally dont even consider gaming as a important and viable market is what pains me.