Apple TV Games Must Work With Apple TV Remote, May Not Require External Controller

[Superhai]

My predictions are ATV4 will be just fine with the remote it have now. Most developers will find a solution to their games, and people will play Candy Crushed Rose Golds like the day will never fade. A few games will have an advanced mode, and maybe sell two or three copies because the controller they require are so rare, and there will probably be at least 30-40 different controllers on the market and for games supporting all of those... will never materialize (with or without Apples limitations). Why do I believe this? Look at the success for controllers not initially with the gaming devices, very few have support from a large number of games. Also if you look at the situation for OS X, there are support for different kind of controllers, but rarely are they properly implemented because they don't come standard with a Mac.

 

[Keirasplace]

Count me in for being disappointed. I was hoping that apple would include a game controller with the apple tv, maybe even call it the apple tv plus. I don't see the purpose of even buying a new apple tv if you're not into games. The normal apple tv will work just fine for netflix. I do understand apples decision to require a game to work with its controller, but i also think it will limit the amount of hardcore games that will come to the app store. Xbox and ps4 are both pushing in the direction of digital downloads which is perfect for apple because the app store is established. An included controller/good games would stop a lot of people from considering any other console.

You do know the Apple TV is pretty cheap for what it provides? You expected a PS4 for $150?
They had to make something that supported current games, and possibly a few more elaborate ones.
The usual App Store games are $1-3, that's a pretty different world than consoles isn't it?

 

[2010mini]

Oh...geez...how can you do something as simple as a jump forward on a 2d platform with that?
Come on! That's a remote, not a game controller!
It's an amazing remote, I guess.
It can ALSO be a great controller for A FEW games but requiring it...means that after all these years Apple still doesn't get games (except maybe the most casual and shallow ones).
Well...150 euros more in my pockets I guess

Well maybe you contact Taylor Swift and have her make Apple reverse course on this.

 

[Unami]

by making it easy for themselves (every game must run on their hardware out of the box) they are making it harder for developers.

sadly, gaming seems to be only a "me too" aspect of the new apple-tv. i see no reason why they shouldn't have included it, but it sure as hell is disappointing for anyone who was hoping to replace their NES (or better). it's far from the care, music and film receive from apple. they had to include games by allowing apps on the apple tv - where there's a computer to program, there's games. also, they already get a ton of money off games and devices used mostly for gaming. maybe they are taking their time until a 99$ apple pro-controller arrives (or the mfi-controller standard gets way sticter) - but they won't get a hold in an already very competitive market that way, nor the developer support, they'd need.

this also makes the new apple-tv somewhat frustrating. your typical tv-apps/apple music would run fine on the old apple-tv, maybe make a slightly updated version (a7, new remote) for better graphic performance. but the 150-200$ that's needed for gaming (a8/2gb ram/32-64gig storage) doesn't make it any more gaming-capable.

personally, i would have bought it without blinking, if they took gaming more seriously. sure, there's some nice updates (better remote, apple music, siri) but on the other hand, it's butt-ugly with it's new proportions and doesn't have an optical out. i'll wait for the next version (or get something else instead. 200$ apple tv + 99$ controller = ps4 after price drop)

 

[DotCom2]

You do know the Apple TV is pretty cheap for what it provides? You expected a PS4 for $150?

They could have come close.

 

[Keirasplace]

PCs are not exactly short on buttons to map things to. In fact some PC games are only playable with the mouse and keyboard due to the sheer number of functions that they have to map.

Here is a list of standard controls for just about any modern 3D game:
Move UP - DOWN - LEFT - RIGHT
Tilt camera UP - DOWN - LEFT - RIGHT
Jump
Shoot/attack
Interact
Inventory
Switch Item/weapon
Menu

Now map them to this remote. Being aware that A. Gyroscope controls generally require frequent recalibration, B. Apple most likely will not let developers override the Siri or Home buttons (and the volume buttons aren't even BT).

Were there is money, there is a way, simple as that. BTW, most of those games would also play like garbage with a controller, so your point is kind of non sequitur. I'm also talking about the support for multiple sorts of external controllers. That was especially the case in the 1990s, before console took over.

 

[El Hikaru]

I welcome simple control.
How do I shoot a gun with that remote? Intuitively, index finger pulls triggers.
You can run around with remote, and can shoot, jump, and switch weapons if you have a controller.

 

[wesk702]

So why can't the developers create a basic functional set of controls that will work with the Apple Remote and have a much greater set of controls that can be access through 3rd Party controllers. Is Apple going to require that the set of controls be the same for all devices?

Yeah the wii had this with marvel vs capcom and it worked pretty awesome. The regular wii control was dumbed down and would do complicated combos and super moves with just the two buttons(perfect for kids). However the advanced controller gave you access to detailed moves and more complicated combinations to access those moves(perfect for more advanced players, like myself ). I thought it worked great and can't see why it can't work here.

 

[firewood]

No one on earth is going to buy this for its gaming capabilities.

Nonsense, people who want gaming capabilities will buy a decent controller to score high or win.
Other users might use the included controller to sample these games, but not score well.
Game developers will build in both a gamer mode and a sample but too slow/hard to win mode because of the limited controller.
There will be idiots who try to win with too-limited a controller, but that's their own fault for being cheapskates.
Most TV buyers will not be hard-core gamers (at first!) so don't want to be saddled with the cost of an unwanted dongle with too many buttons for grandma to figure out.

 

[APlotdevice]

Were there is money, there is a way, simple as that. BTW, most of those games would also play like garbage with a controller, so your point is kind of non sequitur. I'm also talking about the support for multiple sorts of external controllers. That was especially the case in the 1990s, before console took over.

All those controls work perfectly fine on any analog-equipped controller (like the one pictured in the OP). Okay, analog isn't quite as precise as a mouse, but it's good enough. And Early FPS were problematic due to all the weapon switching, but that become a non-issue as games shifted towards only letting the player have two or three weapons at once.

 

[bpeeps]

We're not being obtuse. Requiring the remote limits how complex the game can be, since it has to be able to function with those extremely limited controls.

Sure Nintendo did the whole motion control thing, but they also put a bunch of buttons on their controller and included an attachment that gave you an analog stick and even more buttons.

It doesn't limit anything lol. This post wreaks of people who have no clue the process developers go through. We have been developing for different platforms, specs, hardware, controllers, outputs for decades. A good game company won't even see this as a challenge. Sure your mom and pops with baby iOS games might have some trouble.

 

[Mike MA]

That's not missing the point. The game has to be implemented to the lowest common denominator - the remote - therefore the gamepad can't take full advantage of the gamepad. Some things will work fine - one or two button games with single D-pad control. But most shooters are out, as they require dual analog inputs and multiple buttons.

I disagree. There are already games out supporting several devices. I guess it will depend on the developers of each game. So give it a chance.

 

[PrimeMatrix]

When creating games and apps for the new Apple TV, developers are required to build in support for the touch-based remote, making all content accessible to all users without the need for additional accessories like an MFi controller.

As noted by developer Dustin Westphal and shared by our sister site Touch Arcade, Apple's App Programming Guide for the tvOS says the following: "Your game must support the Apple TV remote. Your game may not require the use of a controller."

The new Apple TV works with third-party Bluetooth controllers, but because they are an optional accessory, they are not allowed to be the primary input method for a game. This requirement will force developers who want to build games around controller use to also include a touch or motion-based control scheme for use with the Apple TV remote.

As Touch Arcade points out, the requirement is bound to be a hassle for developers, especially those with games that have complicated control schemes.Apple appears to have originally planned to allow developers to require a game controller to play Apple TV games, but the company later nixed that policy and is now requiring all games to support the Apple TV remote in addition to a controller.

Apple's choice to require support for the Apple TV is not surprising, as it also has the same requirements for iOS devices. Developers can build controller support into their iPhone and iPad apps, but apps must also include touch-based control schemes for users who do not have a controller.

Article Link: Apple TV Games Must Work With Apple TV Remote, May Not Require External Controller

 

[PrimeMatrix]

Requiring the Apple Remote is a no-brainer, for at least the basic functions.

 

[ryan v]

As an Apple shareholder, I've got to say this is a terrible decision. Simple solution: Instead of outright disallowing controller-only games, hide them from customers until a controller is paired with the device for the first time. That way Apple isn't missing out on the massive console gaming market.

 

[APlotdevice]

It doesn't limit anything lol. This post wreaks of people who have no clue the process developers go through. We have been developing for different platforms, specs, hardware, controllers, outputs for decades. A good game company won't even see this as a challenge. Sure your mom and pops with baby iOS games might have some trouble.

Oh? So you would have absolutely no trouble mapping a FPS/TPS to an NES controller?

 

[KindredMAC]

Big mistake! Not happy to hear about this!

 

[canesalato]

Well maybe you contact Taylor Swift and have her make reverse course on this.

ahah i'll start writing right now

 

[Soccertess]

Consoles failed so hard:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_million-selling_game_consoles#Home_game_consoles

Whereas Tim Cook said at the Apple Watch conference on March 9, 2015 that Apple had sold a total of 25 million Apple TVs to date.

No, the consoles didn't fail, the controllers that attempted to innovate on controls did. I'm talking about PS3 motion controller, Kinect, and Wii motion controller (which they basically abandon in Wii U, but was fine for 4 year olds). I should have been more clear. You are right those consoles were quite successful (except Wii U)

There generic controller that stuck to the tried and tested worked fine (I personally dislike them because I think almost all fingers should have a button). The Oculus controller looks cools and I really like it.

 

[patohi]

This is horrible!

It will in fact be less successful!

How you say? Well devs will just not want to put the effort in that remote and simply not make games for Apple TV.

So less games and less reasons to buy the Apple TV.

This will indeed affect how many Apple TVs will be sold.

This was going to be a day one buy, but instead I'm now probably going to skip it simply for this reason.

I bet a lot of games for the Apple TV just got cancelled today.

Even the wiimote had most games require the analog stick attachment to work!

Apple just dropped the ball amazing! Sad and well stupid....

 

[Chupa Chupa]

More Tim Cookery at work. Maybe I'd feel different if Crossy Road nee Frogger wasn't the marque "demo" game for ATV. Just seems if Apple is not going to really try and compete with gaming consoles why bother? Forcing all games to be compatible with the Apple Remote is like requiring all foods to be compatible with a fork. Why not let the market determine if a game is good enough to have to buy a 3rd party controller? Or at least just make a true game controller rather than copy Roku (and we know how great Roku games are).

 

[Marquis202]

You do know the Apple TV is pretty cheap for what it provides? You expected a PS4 for $150?
They had to make something that supported current games, and possibly a few more elaborate ones.
The usual App Store games are $1-3, that's a pretty different world than consoles isn't it?

I think they could have come close. The same way they pretty much set the standard for the $199 cell phone price after the original iPhone. The apple tv could have a premium section where some games are 50 or 60 dollars. The same way they can give iMovie away for free but charge $399 for final cut pro x. This would be no different. The beauty of including a controller is that most people would then go to the apple store to buy another. The more controllers the more money you can make off "premium games". People would find value in the fact that they can use the controller for an iPad or iPhone also.

 

[Keirasplace]

All those controls work perfectly fine on any analog-equipped controller (like the one pictured in the OP). Okay, analog isn't quite as precise as a mouse, but it's good enough. And Early FPS were problematic due to all the weapon switching, but that become a non-issue as games shifted towards only letting the player have two or three weapons at once.

I've devellopped software for almost 30 years and come on, there is no problem here. There's even a

This is horrible!

It will in fact be less successful!

How you say? Well devs will just not want to put the effort in that remote and simply not make games for Apple TV.

So less games and less reasons to buy the Apple TV.

This will indeed effect how many Apple TVs will be sold.

This was going to be a day one buy but instead I'm now probably going to skip it simply for this reason.

I bet a lot of games for the Apple TV just got cancelled today.

Even the wiimote had most games require the analog stick attachment to work!

Apple just dropped the ball amazing! Sad and well stupid....

Right... They will forgo a potential market of tens of millions of people (yes there will be that many by next year) because they won't be spending the few days to adapt their game to provide the base mode. Apple didn't even say that mode should be great, just usable.... Of course, devs that care could make it great anyway.

Leaving money on the table for something that takes a minimum of effort is beyond unlikely.

 

[Keirasplace]

I think they could have come close. The same way they pretty much set the standard for the $199 cell phone price after the original iPhone. The apple tv could have a premium section where some games are 50 or 60 dollars. The same way they can give iMovie away for free but charge $399 for final cut pro x. This would be no different. The beauty of including a controller is that most people would then go to the apple store to buy another. The more controllers the more money you can make off "premium games". People would find value in the fact that they can use the controller for an iPad or iPhone also.

The original Iphone was not $200, that's the financed price. The actual Iphone was 3 times that price. That's about $680 in todays' money. So, the Iphone was a much more upmarket device than this.

This is by far the lowest priced mass market device Apple makes (except for the initial AppleTV, which was always considered a hobby like device).

 

[tmanto02]

Until the next TVos update!

Honestly most of us have been using Apple devices and been on these forums long enough to realise that Apple always tightens their belts for first releases then relaxes the rules later!