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.
Xbox Founding Engineer Says Apple TV Could Destroy Console Gaming with Third-Party Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wouldn't it be great if Apple controlled everything and we only had to do what they dictated?
If Apple opened up an App Store for Apple TV, and made a wireless controller for all iOS devices than yes, XBOX, Playstation, and Nintendo would die within a few short years. Why? 99c games with real "button" controls will satisfy 90% of Gamers, 99% of Wallets, and 100% of Parents
They'd have a long way to go considering that the current AppleTV's chip is at best comparable to an original Xbox. (keep in mind that it's a single core version of the A5)
If Sony could have afford to remove their content from Apple's iTunes they would have years ago, but they need iTunes more than Apple needs them.
Microsoft treats the XBox slightly better than Apple treats AppleTV today.
Apple TV isn't quite to toe yet... It's still stuck at A5 SINGLE CORE processor versus A5 and A6 DUAL CORE processors in other iOS devices. It's chicken and egg.. Until margins sort out Apple isn't going to release Apple TV at a loss with the better processors... Until they jump to gaming, people won't pay more than $99 current price...
So when the stars align and A6x and more storage and some kind of controller can hit $199 with a full store of games ready to go Apple won't pull the trigger.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multim...k_OS_Multi_Core_x86_and_Large_Hard_Drive.html
It is going to be a killing for AMD and we are back on x86 for the Xbox. I wonder what the means for game ports.
Or possible even better, a Fusion drive.
16 or 32GB flash drive for whatever needs to be fast, anything else can go on a large HDD (much smaller OS, so an OS X size Fusion flash drive isn't needed). That way you you end up with much more storage at a reasonable price.
AMD has a killing with their next architecture and their APU stuff. So it wouldn't surprise me. Although, the game ports are likely to happen for a fee for those owners (rebuying the game again).
Times have changed. When I was in college hardcore gaming was done on a PC and we all wasted too much time obsessing over graphic cards, overclocking, updating our CPU, installing extra fans.
But in those days, computers clearly outclasses gaming systems in the hardware department. X-Box and PS3 essentially killed that market. The consoles were good enough to drive games that were just as good as the PC version. And without the headache of trying to configure your system for optimum performance and a few more frame rates.
I agree with the comments made by someone else that we people are trying to lump people who play games and the hardcore gamers who play console games into the same group.
The former will likely be fine with anything Apple rolls out. But Apple would have to cater beyond simple games with simple controls to get that hardcore teenage/college/adult male gamer.
In order for Apple to have a chance at "destroying the console marktet", their AppleTV would have to come with a controller very similar to both XBox360 and PS3. For free. Right now, you can get an XBox360 as low as $199 which includes the controller.
Also, being that it would download only (no optical drive on the AppleTV), the system would have to have a substantial SSD to store the downloaded games.
Lastly, the games that people buy for these home consoles mainly aren't angry birds that might be 50MB tops. They are the "DARK SOULS", "SKYRIM", "HALO" games that are literally gigs and gigs each. Without those types of games, Sony and Microsoft will doing just fine.
Also, being that it would download only (no optical drive on the AppleTV), the system would have to have a substantial SSD to store the downloaded games.
Lastly, the games that people buy for these home consoles mainly aren't angry birds that might be 50MB tops. They are the "DARK SOULS", "SKYRIM", "HALO" games that are literally gigs and gigs each. Without those types of games, Sony and Microsoft will doing just fine.
at 10', 16k is where research shows human vision can't distinguish from real objects. not 1080p, not 4k, not even 8k. Granted, the gains past 4k are small. Link to chart. lol, it's saying your 50" 1080p tv isn't truly retina even at 40 feet
You're right though, I guess it's not as much about the screen size or resolution as the lack of power consoles have vs gaming PC's, and the lack of control compared to keyboard and mouse.
Ever since I tried first person shooter with keyboard and mouse, I can't play them with controllers. no precision or control, no 180º head shots. the only way you get that control is sitting at a desk with a mouse, which usually has a smaller monitor closer, rather than a big one farther away.
While the APU is not going to win at everything, AMD has a balanced, low powered, single chip (CPU/fGPU) processing solution down very well.
2013 is going to be great for mobile. 4-8 x86 cores from Intel and AMD in a sub-20W envelope.
True APUs won't win everything, but like you said, the sub-20W market will be see domination by AMD. Good for those x86 tablets and PCs for emerging markets.
To obtain a % of market share they deem necessary to deliver a unrivaled Gaming Ecosystem. 70/30 is nice when you have copious amounts of cash.
Just about there..........
----------
Cloud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV-U50Viv_k
I don't know if I posted this earlier but AMD's tablets are going to be x86 gaming capable even if you are not at Ultra settings.
IMO the problem with consoles is multi-fold.
First you have the interface. The xbox 360 and ps3 interfaces are horrible. Apple has a very simple interface on the latest apple tv iOS, you just add apps to the main screen.
The second problem is boot up time. It takes nearly 5 minutes to boot my xbox 360 or ps3 and get into a game. I don't have the time or patience to deal with this sort of thing anything. I don't devote days to gaming anymore. I have a few minutes to play and then the kids or the wife wants to watch something on the tv and i'm screwed until they goto bed. Well i was screwed before i got my iPad
The 3rd problem is price. I don't want to pay $59.99 for games and have a physical dvd or bluray disc laying around. The pets and children do not understand how delicate they are. I'd much rather buy a game for $.99 - $4.99 then buy one for $59.99 and not like it. I can afford to buy 12-30 games and not like them all, and that's highly unlikely to happen.
Your view of an interface is subjective. I find the latest Xbox dashboard very easy to navigate. Personally, I find this iteration of Apple TV's interface gross.
My Xbox 360 is 4 years old and takes no more than 90 seconds to startup, login and launch Call of Duty. Also, there is no way you're going to get COD-type content for 4.99 – you're dreaming.
100 million a year in revenue is not bad imo. A billion downloads isn't bad either.
Last edited:
Hopefully, this means games like Crysis (I know, generic game and cliche) won't be watered down for XBox... (just look at screenshots of the original full blown Crysis running on the PC than full blown at XBox; there is lots of differences).
The price difference between putting an A5 vs an A6X is nearly negligible, especially if you consider the 30% apple gets from apps/content. Plus if they do release one later this year, it would have A7X. The reason they put single core A5 is because that's all that is needed to play 1080p movies, which happens to be to most cpu/gpu intensive task the Apple TV is "allowed" to do at this moment.
at 10', 16k is where research shows human vision can't distinguish from real objects. not 1080p, not 4k, not even 8k. Granted, the gains past 4k are small. Link to chart. lol, it's saying your 50" 1080p tv isn't truly retina even at 40 feet
Interesting. The chart he linked to says what he claimed. The chart you linked to says something different, but also assumes a much higher resolution requirement than the 'retina' display definition.
400 pixels per degree vs. 300 pixels per inch at 12", or approximately 63 pixels per degree if I'm doing the math right (1" at 12" is about 4.76 degrees). Significantly different figures to determine the thresholds. We know the 'retina display' figure is based on 20/20 visual acuity, but I have no idea where the former figure (more than 6.34 times higher) came from.
Given experience with the visual clarity of retina displays, I'm more inclined to believe figures based on *that* metric than one which would require an iPhone 4 to have a resolution of 4058×6086 to (roughly 2000ppi) without knowing how/why threshold was chosen.
I'm entirely open to the possibility that I got that initial angle calculation wrong, by the way.