One dominates the gaming market by producing games that people want to play and thus will not only purchase the games but purchase the hardware that the games play on and once the hardware is purchase, people continue to purchase newly released games because the games are better than everyone else's.
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.
Microsoft Was Willing to Bring Xbox-Exclusive Games to iPhone via xCloud
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, since you define it that narrowly, I have no qualms with Apple giving up that crown to whichever other platform currently meets this very specific set of standards.
Apple has 0 games and zero gaming consoles. They'll never be like Microsoft or Sony.
And when talking of PC gaming Apple literally has no games to play. Apple Arcade is boring. There are 0 good games.
My point is that they don’t need to be, because they already have over a billion iPhones that people have on at all times. It’s the whole camera VS smartphone debate all over again. For many people, the best gaming device is the one they have on them at all times.
I don't see Apple investing in a dedicated gaming console because of the lack of synergy with the iPhone. Their decision to focus on the iPhone over the last decade has been pretty straightforward in its effectiveness and its simplicity. Build a moat around the iPhone to increase the overall stickiness of the Apple ecosystem, while buying time to develop the next big thing (which will almost assuredly leverage on its billion strong iPhone user base.
In a sense, their billion strong iPhone install base is both their biggest strength and their greatest weakness.
Last edited:
They mention a few different plans. Yes, there was one like that. There was also the plan where each app was its own iOS app complete with the streaming stack in each one. This was what apple wanted and where the talks broke down. MS was initially on board with the each app as its own download until the streaming stack issue. That's where talks broke down.
Back in the day, you could tell something was Java cause it looked and ran like junk. Newer web technologies (and frankly, faster computers to run such unoptimized code) are blurring the lines more. For example, many iPhone apps are now written in React Native with very few native components, making them essentially locally-hosted websites, and almost nobody can tell. Electron apps on desktop are more obvious because they're often single-window and load like websites, but many are still fooled.
More on topic, I've tried both Stadia and Nvidia Now. They're in-browser. With good internet, it feels just like I'm using a PC or console. Haven't tried xCloud, but it works in Mobile Safari even, and probably the only reason MS wants it on the App Store is for marketing reasons. For one, Apple intentionally never implemented web push notifications, so iPhone apps are the only way to do that.
Last edited:
Unless said measurement is how many people are buying the hardware to play games. Otherwise Apple stuff would be first class citizens on big ticket games like Star Citizen.
Please stop inferring in your posts that the iphone is a gaming device and then using that to argue Apples stance towards gaming, because it is not. Whilst you make sure you do not directly or indirectly refer to the iphone as a gaming device, what you do do is when discussing about Apple gaming is to bring up the iphone. Yes the iphone can play games but it is not a gaming device. Nintendo Switch is a gaming device, PS Vita is a gaming device, Gameboy, 3DS are game devices.
Do we really need to make such a distinction?
So what if the Switch is a gaming device and so what if the iPhone isn't?
I game on my iPhone. I game on my iPad. I game on my Apple TV. I game on the OLED switch that I recently purchased. I can project my iPhone to my 4k tv via a lightning-to-HDMI adaptor and play Grimvalor via a MFI game controller. From the switch, I understand the allure of console gaming, in that there is a clear gulf in the quality of games that you can find on a gaming console vs iOS (nothing on iOS even comes close to Streets of Rage 4, which is like a entry level console game), but the tradeoff is clearly portability and accessibility. I can't always have a console on me, even if it's a Switch or Switch Lite, but I will always have my phone with me.
So if I am stuck in a boring zoom meeting in school and want to play some "Slay the Spire" to kill time, do you think I am more likely to be playing it on my switch (which I don't intend to bring out of the house) or on my iPad (which is always with me for work)?
In a sense, it reminds me of the earlier arguments about whether the iPad is a computer or not. Who cares really? I use my iPad to teach in the classroom because it does what I want it to do. I don't use a MBA for that same purpose because it lacks the iPad's touchscreen, touch-centric interface or native touchscreen apps. Whether one is a computer or not by whatever definition seems to be the flavour of the day is not as important as the value proposition that each brings to the table.
At some point, the argument just feels so academic. I do also want to comment on the state of Switch game pricing (why do so many games settle on $60?), but maybe that's why the market is there, because people are willing to pay?
I think the cost of games is interesting. It is borne out of trying to get the ROI as quickly as possible. For example Cyberpunk 2077 actually made all of its developement costs back within 3 months of release. Having a lower priced game would have made that process take longer (and risk it not making its money back).
As far as considering an iPhone as a gaming device, I am torn. Yeah it can play games, but as folks have noticed games that run on the Switch probably would run just fine on an iPhone yet they are missing (like your Streets of Rage 4 example). For all the talk about how much money Apple makes it is really curious that we don’t get the same breakdown from developers on how much they make.
I recall reading somewhere that Apple makes the bulk of their gaming revenue (and App Store revenue basically) via IAPs from freemium games.
There have been other articles here and there. For example, monument valley made about $14 million.
Monument Valley Has Made $14 Million in All Time Revenue, 26 Million Downloads
www.dualshockers.com
But likely more the exception for paid games than the norm.
Yeah I recall seeing a statistic that claimed 90% of Apples App Store revenue is made from gaming (which I think was claimed to be 10% of the software available in the store). Which goes a long way towards explaining why they react the way they do for game related policy violations.I recall reading somewhere that Apple makes the bulk of their gaming revenue (and App Store revenue basically) via IAPs from freemium games.
There have been other articles here and there. For example, monument valley made about $14 million.
Monument Valley Has Made $14 Million in All Time Revenue, 26 Million Downloads
But likely more the exception for paid games than the norm.
All PC games go to Windows, but they're a niche market. In 2020, Star Citizen (which I've never heard of) had 1M total unique players. Clash of Clans had around 130M monthly active players the same year.
Consoles also account for more gaming revenue than PCs do. In the past the gap was even larger.
Last edited:
I wasn’t aware Clash of Clans was a full priced game.
Substitute Star Citizen for Cyberpunk 2077 if you want.
Or more to the point iOS crushes mobile gaming yet we don’t see Halo Infinite running on it (natively).
Why do so many societies have age limits on movies and games but not on books?
Why would many people find it acceptable that the local library had a copy of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kamp, but would balk at the library hosting the exhibit "Cool uniforms of the Third Reich"?
Just like societies, businesses doesn't need to be consistent or follow some algorithmic rule on how to treat other businesses. They can discriminate. They can be inconsistent.
Apple should be free to use all kinds of reasons on how they run their store: business reasons, enforcement power, customer expectation, legal reasons, cost reasons etc.
Running a store should be pragmatic and not principled.
Yes, but Apple should only care about its own customer and Microsoft should only care about its customers.
Just because those customers use services from other companies doesn't mean they should be obligated to make those work.
You as a customer as only one job to do: Either but it or don't.
You, as a customer, should have no say in how company runs their business or how their products and services works, unless the company wants to have your input.
It's a special program called the Video Partner Program. Currently there are over 130 partners.
The first partners were Amazon, Altic One and Canal+.
Apple Video Partner Program
The Apple Video Partner Program is designed for apps that deliver premium subscription video entertainment services on the Apple TV app.
It's not necessary to distribute information about this program widely since only big, premium video providers could qualify and Apple knows who they are.
And they are free to receive criticism about it as well. As a customer of both, this decision only hurts us. This alone isn’t enough to make me switch to android, but it’s frustrating as a customer to be told what we can and can’t do with devices we pay for. THAT isn’t pragmatic as you so eloquently put. The hope is with enough criticism and awareness put out there, Apple would change this ridiculous policy.
Last edited: