You are certain about this? Is this because you are from the future and saw this?
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 TV Games Must Work With Apple TV Remote, May Not Require External Controller
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are certain about this? Is this because you are from the future and saw this?
The thread got away while I was gone, so I apologize if this has been beaten into the ground.
Cramming a lot of buttons onto a small device doesn't make it ergonomic. Ergonomic devices are learned quickly and are intuitive and comfortable to use. Ideally, you can use one for a very brief period of time and then use it in the dark without effort, by feel. A good example is the iconic TiVo remote. Of course it wouldn't be trivial to integrate a touchpad into that type of design, but that doesn't change the underlying issue.
My take is the regular gamer is not the market for Apple TV at all. Hence this requirement. How many decades has the 2J2X (two joysticks, two cross-layout-buttons) controller been around? One thing I couldn't stand about the whole 2J2X controller is the need to use both hands to fully control the game.
The addition of motion and a touch surface can greatly replace the dynamics of crouching around a 2J2X controller. A good developer will rethink how to replace the 2J2X input into the new remote. Once someone gets it right, everyone will copy. I'm sure Apple has an internal paper about this and just waiting to see what happens in the wild.
Ya well I don't know what they are trying to prove....
I want the Apple TV to succeed! But this is one of those decisions that you know deep down was a mistake and will probably be reversed at some point.
You can tell it's a mistake right away because Apple just changed its mind last minute....
Apple's thinking is probably too many games would be mfi only. Adding to that that Apple doesn't make a mfi controller and so they can't control supplies and if demand is too great they are screwed.
So maybe Apple panicked? I could see this as a possible reason.
I still think it's worse to offer a horrible controller experience then none at all.
I just hope someone at Apple is reading this, but highly doubt it.
Good developers will be able to create games that will take advantage of that controller, lets be honest its not great for games, as all purpose.
Think this as a potential beginning of apple games on Apple TV, yeah it may not be a great intro, but its the first steps. Apple are control freaks, hence they do it on thier terms, at this point its ports of games that rely on touch screens. I suspect they want all games to be cross device, and support touch screens. While a controller would makes games so much better, and allow much better games to be developed, apple still wants them to be used on idevices foremost, with the main input being a touch surface.
The apple TV is a jack of all trades, the gaming "supported", and we are a long way from apple delivering a gaming console, its not the Apple TV, for one its underpowered compared to the competition, maybe in the future Apple will take on the real consoles.
Lets watch this space, at least this is a start, a very controlled start to gaming on a big screen.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to photography and you don't want to be told otherwise. See you in six months when everyone is nuts for gaming on this thing.
It seems like we're arguing different things. If you think the new Apple TV was designed for games like Call of Duty then yeah the remote would be a disaster. However for casual games and most importantly... for browsing the Apple TV UI I think the remote was designed very well.
I must be seeing things differently but I don't see 6 buttons on a remote as cramming. I've looked at the remote a few times and I'm almost positive I already have memorized where the buttons are and I haven't held it yet. Sure it has more buttons than the previous remote but I don't think that's a bad thing in this case. I guess we can just wait and see how long it takes to actually learn the remote.
As opposed to combing through Apps and downloading one...only to find out it's completely unusable until you go buy some accessory that's required to play it?
Sure the included remote won't be the best controller, but requiring compatibility means you'll be able to use any app right out of the box.
Android TV has a section that is titled Games Requiring a Gamepad. It's not a rocket science thing to address nor unique.
no, it's not. the wii remote has 6 buttons you can access without lifting your fingers (d-pad, trigger, A). then another 2, where you have to lift your finger (+ and -), a home button, and another two at the bottom, in case you turn the remote on it's side. it's ergonomically shaped to fit in your hand, and long enough for sideways orientation. AND it also works as an accurate pointing device which makes it a great controller for games that would need a (single) touch interface or mouse control. and then there's the also included nunchuck controller, which offers another set of motion controls plus an analog stick plus another 2 buttons.
tl;dr that's either 11 buttons, motion control and analogue pointing device or 13 buttons, analogue stick, 2x motion control and pointing device for supposedly "casual" wii gaming. compared to 6 buttons (which can't be reached at the same time with one hand), motion control and a touch pad. It's no contest - even a NES controller had ergonomically better gaming-functionality. and that's the sad thing, that they didn't even try to best that. this reminds me more of the remote of a phillips cdi or some set-top box, that also offered gaming. and we all know the direction that went.
People are reading way to much into this and I don't see anything odd about this. Yes, the games must have basic functionality with the remote. But nowhere does it say it can't offer additional functionality to a controller. For instance, a FPS game may have directional controls and trigger, but the controller will offer better precision, targeting, easier access to weapon swapping and so on.
Funny that someone mentioned it this being inferior to the NES, when it came with 2+2 buttons as well
Funny that someone mentioned it this being inferior to the NES, when it came with 2+2 buttons as well
As has been pointed out many times already, that issue can be solved with a simple warning prior to download. Make it obvious and people would only have themselves to blame if they bought something by mistake.
Saying it's not the best would be massive understatement for any game that needs all the buttons and sticks that a game controller offers. When developers mapped those kinds of games to the Wiimote, they took advantage of all of its 10 buttons and the 2 additional buttons and analog stick of the Nunchuck attachment. Here we don't have any of that. Just a trackpad and maybe three usable buttons.
Last edited:
And what if that game is multiplayer? How does someone with the remote compete with someone with a controller?People are reading way to much into this and I don't see anything odd about this. Yes, the games must have basic functionality with the remote. But nowhere does it say it can't offer additional functionality to a controller. For instance, a FPS game may have directional controls and trigger, but the controller will offer better precision, targeting, easier access to weapon swapping and so on.
Funny that someone mentioned it this being inferior to the NES, when it came with 2+2 buttons as well
Someone already wrote about the ergonomics of the remote at the beginning of this thread and I have to second his opinion.
When I saw the crappy birds demo in keynote and the guy swiping constantly with his thumb, I thought "seriously Apple?". I mean no doubt that those games would appear on the store but showing off some game that when played often and for quite a few minutes could easily damage/hurt your thumb just felt strange for Apple...
When I saw the crappy birds demo in keynote and the guy swiping constantly with his thumb, I thought "seriously Apple?". I mean no doubt that those games would appear on the store but showing off some game that when played often and for quite a few minutes could easily damage/hurt your thumb just felt strange for Apple...
That section will be empty on Apple TV, at least for now. People who refuse to play any game that requires the use of fewer than twelve buttons are going to be left out in the cold.
I'm actually encouraged about the new Apple TV controller with so many people on here are trashing it. Kinda reminds me of the utter vile reaction some people on here did when the first iPhone was announced.
While it looks pathetic now, many were complaining the iPhone did not have a mechanical keyboard and how its accelerometer was "useless" for users.
These game controller critics will eat their words in a few months.
The iPhone compensated for a lack of physical controls with multitouch. How the **** is this going to compensate? It's not like the concept of a remote with gyroscopes/accelerometers is actually new to the world of gaming; We know how well that works by itself thanks to the Wiimote (which had way more usable buttons than this). The only thing "new" this offers is a trackpad (which isn't really new since the PS4 controller has one). That's not going to be enough for games that require more complicated controls.
Last edited:
This. And before the purchase is made they could show a warning: "You don't have a game controller connected to your Apple TV are you sure to buy this game?"
The Siri Remote will have the following game controller capabilities; the touchpad will function as a d-pad and as well as a button (A), and the Play button will be also assignable to a button (X). The Menu button has to be used as a pause button. Also orientation and motion are available as input. This is sufficient to most games, but as everyone is stating - including Apple - for serious gaming the option for a dedicated controller is available.
And even tough a lots of people claim the decision Apple have made as the downfall of mankind and the universe, I doubt that is the case. But the specs and requirements are not finalized, and the developers will have their say after they finished evaluating their test devices, and likely begun or maybe even completed developing some games.
For those who have big mouth and less of other, this might not be valuable, however it is useful to take a glance on the dev docs:
https://developer.apple.com/library....html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40015241-CH18-SW1
https://developer.apple.com/library...roduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40013276
And even tough a lots of people claim the decision Apple have made as the downfall of mankind and the universe, I doubt that is the case. But the specs and requirements are not finalized, and the developers will have their say after they finished evaluating their test devices, and likely begun or maybe even completed developing some games.
For those who have big mouth and less of other, this might not be valuable, however it is useful to take a glance on the dev docs:
https://developer.apple.com/library....html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40015241-CH18-SW1
https://developer.apple.com/library...roduction.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40013276
Those games that require more complicated controls will be absent from the app store, unless the developers can come up with creative ways to use the trackpad and other control methods available on the Apple TV remote. I expect there will still be lots of games, and small-g gamers buying them and playing them, but not a very large contingent of Apple TV Gamers rocking their cosplay at the next big gaming convention you attend.