Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo another update later this year, adding some new multimedia capabilities like integration with certain cable television channels, as well as the long-ago-announced-but-never-realized IPTV integration.¹ There’s even Kinect support, so XBox owners can speak commands to switch what they’re viewing. Not only does this further direct us to what the future will be like, but it also prompting the question of, “Why can’t Apple do this?”

That is to say, the Apple TV is a much cheaper set-top solution than the XBox. (Of course it is, as it’s not a traditional gaming console.) But the features Microsoft is advertising with the new XBox dashboard upgrade is straight up the territory that Apple has fought for with the Apple TV, and it’s not hard to see how Apple may respond.

Why wouldn’t Apple be vying for similar contracts that Microsoft has snatched up for the XBox? Players like HBO, Bravo, the UFC, and others are clearly good to have on your team, and while Apple is still pushing content via iTunes, there are several others like real-time streaming pay-per-view that Apple could go after. But it’s not just content that Apple can try to match, it’s also cost and functionality.

Take Siri, for example, which is premiering on the iPhone 4S. Whether or not it comes to the next-gen Apple TV, there’s already solid integration between Apple devices, so it’s not hard to imagine that Apple might leverage Siri on the iPhone to control the Apple TV. From browsing the iTunes catalogue for TV shows and movies, to playback control, Siri looks like it could become an integral part of the future television experience. And Siri becoming a foundation for future control methods doesn’t need to stop there, considering how third-parties could leverage the technology.

We already have games utilizing AirPlay to stream video and audio to the AppleTV. Add in a third element, voice commands, and suddenly games can become even more complex and immersive. The XBox can do the same, of course, but whereas the Kinect remains an almost novelty purchase, Siri is part of the new iPhone experience, which means it won’t be too long before every iPhone Apple sells will offer the virtual assistant built in.

Siri’s real future is how third-party developers can integrate Siri functionality in their apps. It’s already great for Apple’s included apps, but it becomes ever more cool when we can create new tasks in OmniFocus using voice commands, or new notes in SimpleNote, than relying on first-party apps. Especially if we can use Siri to manipulate these apps along with AirPlay, giving us a big-screen picture to control with our voice.

Similar Posts:

• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…


• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…


• Apple’s console already exists. – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …

Over the past couple days, we’ve seen considerable speculation about Apple’s involvement in television manufacturing; some wish to believe that Apple will delve into the TV production business, while others are critical in this regard. Others still are taking this opportunity to point out that doubting Apple’s entry in a given market has a poor track record, what with Apple having releasing the iPod, iPhone, iPod Touch, and Apple TV not long after pundits proclaimed these endeavors too risky, or too unlike Apple.

What’s certain, at least, is that Apple doubled down on their “hobby,” the Apple TV, when they released an iOS-based version costing just under a hundred bucks. The device is plug-and-play, easy-to-use, and is already offering alluring new features thanks to fancy licensing deals with Netflix, Major League Baseball, the NBA, et al. Indeed, the Apple TV is being positioned as an alternative to cable television, offering a consistent experience across markets that do not share the same cable provider. More importantly, the a la carte television and movie programming has gotten substantially better over time (addressing a chief complaint we’ve had with the Apple TV for years).

So Apple TV’s getting better, and that means Apple has an excellent weapon they can use to continue infiltrating an otherwise chaotic industry, offering a clean, consistent experience that potentially rivals the experience cable operators offer. Lessien believes that Apple can leverage apps, iAds, and subscriptions to even further promote the Apple TV, where apps pay homage to the living room gamer.

Apps, in particular games, give Apple an opportunity to extend their hugely successful mobile development platform into the living room. Low-priced apps, immediately downloadable, connected via GameCenter, controllable with iOS handheld devices just make sense. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft should be nervous.

There’s still a question as to how apps will work on the Apple TV, because to date, third-party Apple TV apps have been part of official iOS updates, not voluntary installs from an Apple TV AppStore. And then, of course, are the issues with transforming the Apple TV into a console replacement.

What of the controller?

The Apple TV comes with a lone remote. It’s a nice, simplistic remote, and in no way capable of working as a good console controller. The notion of using iOS devices as controllers is a worthy one, with such functionality easily worked into Apple’s Remote app. But whether it can technically be done or not is hardly the issue. Rather, if Apple planned to situate the Apple TV as a console replacement, it wouldn’t drastically increase the adopter fee by requiring a controller purchase several times more than the cost of the Apple TV itself. While many people already have iOS devices they can use for this purpose, Apple won’t make that a requirement any more than they made having an iPhone a prerequisite for iPad cellular data service¹.

The alternative to buying up older, second-hand iPhones and iPod Touches is simply buying a new iController that only runs the Apple Remote app, or perhaps runs a specific iController app that allows developers to create skin-able controller layouts for various games. The controller wouldn’t need an A5 processor, much storage, or RAM, and could rely purely on bluetooth for connectivity. With a gyroscope for added functionality, this iController could probably come in at a reasonable price-point, so families could pick up an Apple TV, two iControllers, and a multi-iController charging dock for under 200 bucks.

Such an iController would clearly be wireless, and would have a sufficient battery life for prolonged gaming sessions. But, without tactile feedback, and being limited to virtual buttons on the device face, there’s an obvious question of how capable the device would be compared to the multi-button monstrosities that modern gaming controllers have become. That’s not to say that a simpler, more polished interface isn’t an attractive proposal, but this could be considered a major flaw when compared to consoles whose controllers offer a button for every conceivable action in a given game; Apple TV games may inherently need to be simpler.

The only other option is let the Apple TV interface with bluetooth-enabled gaming controllers of a more conventional form, but this then becomes a contrary force to the multitouch philosophy that Apple has pushed for iOS. In order for Apple to remain consistent in this regard, we see it challenging devices like the Wii, but not button-heavy consoles like the XBox 360 and Playstation 3. Ultimately, if the Apple TV is to compete in the console wars, it needs to find a way to offer the same titles that other consoles do, and that means offering a controller scheme that’s not weaker in comparison.

What of the storage?

The Apple TV doesn’t have a lot of storage. In fact, it’s designed to stream content, not download it. So when we talk of games, anything substantial is no longer a possibility. Yes, Apple could allow the attachment of an external hard-drive, but now we’re again pumping up the cost of the device and making it less accessible. If Apple decided to increase the Apple TV’s storage, we could get away with simpler, casual games, but to truly compete with the big boys, we’d see games many gigs in size. That’s not to say that Apple couldn’t position the Apple TV as a casual-friendly console and compete exclusively with the Wii in this regard, but why limit market penetration to such a niche role?

The only other option is to stream video, and here, Apple may have a sound strategy. That is to say, Apple has already proven it can get content owners on board with its platform, as seen with record labels, movie studios, and TV broadcasters. So, if Apple decided to take on OnLive, and use the Apple TV to stream gaming video feeds, then storage isn’t an issue. However, this seems contrary to the AppStore ecosystem Apple has established to date, and makes rolling out a nation-wide, consistent experience difficult. That’s not to say such a move isn’t plausible, merely unlikely.

What of established iOS gaming?

With no clear solution to the problems of offering low-cost controllers and storage for the Apple TV, there’s nothing Microsoft and Sony need to worry about just yet². Apple would likely do a much better job than OnLive for getting a streaming library of games available to a wide audience, but the technology here is still too young for widespread adoption. Apple is better off focusing on how they can situate the Apple TV as an every-man device, and look to entering the set-top console fray at a later date.

Where traditional gaming companies need to watch out is Apple’s continued domination of the mobile space. Technologies like AirPlay, or even video-out adapters, may well serve gamers to stream iPhone and iPad gaming to the big-screen, and this is where we expect to see additional innovation. Why tack on additional costs to the Apple TV by offering new controllers, or muse about potential storage solutions, when we already have capable storage on existing iOS devices?

The Apple TV doesn’t need gaming apps, it simply needs to present the apps already on our iOS devices to the big-screen. Everyone thinks the Apple TV could be another platform for Apple to push, but its true strength is in acting as a bridge between our existing Apple devices and the television. Just as it already streams music, photos, and video from our devices, the Apple TV could be leveraged to present a gaming experience served up from these same devices. The issue then is not adding controllers and storage to the Apple TV, but adding an Apple TV to our iPhones, iPads, and Macs.

Similar Posts:

• Apple’s console already exists. – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the ...


• Siri integration with the Apple TV? - Microsoft recently sent out a heads-up to the masses that XBox Live will undergo [another update](ht…


• Apple TV, AirPlay, and Plex. – When we mentioned jailbreaking the Apple TV, we didn’t make clear that yes, a jailbreak for Apple TV…

It’s hard to believe that we’re nearing the end of the life cycle for the 7th generation of video game consoles. With speculation growing about what the 8th console generation will bring, Maxator threw his thoughts into the mix.

This generation was extended by the horrific economy and the late addition of motion sensing hardware by Microsoft/Sony and improvement of the Wiimotes with the Motion Plus dongle. That said, the Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 have all exceeded the previous standard of four or so years between console generations…

It does seem like the current console generation has lasted awhile, but per Wikipedia, that’s not entirely true. It turns out that gauging generation length isn’t straightforward.

One way to determine the duration of a generation is to look at the length of sales for a given technology (e.g. 8-bit). The problem here is that sales length doesn’t account for technology availability causing generational overlap. For example, Playstation sales continued even after the Playstation 2 was launched, and new titles still continued to appear on the Playstation. Disregarding availability of newer technology means that the duration of older generations appear longer. (This would mean that the 3rd console generation lasted a solid 12 years.)

A second method for determining generation length is to consider a generation over once newer technology is available for sale. In other words, rather than factoring in the Playstation’s full sale’s life, we can consider it dead as soon as newer technology (e.g. the Playstation 2) became available. Under this method, the 4th generation has lasted the longest, with a record nine years.

Still, this means the current console generation has already lasted six years, and puts it in a position to last another year or two depending on how quickly the Big Three can bring a new console to market.

Nintendo, the old stand-by.

Compared to its competitors, Nintendo made waves with the Wii by introducing comparatively weak hardware, but at a cheaper price point and with an innovative control system. Maxator believes the “Wii HD” will be revealed at E3 in June.

I expect more of an iterative approach, then an all out new console, similar to Nintendo’s market strategy with the DS. I see a vastly improved processor with the same architecture allowing backwards compatibility with older Wii games. HDMI output for HD resolution is a no brainer and I don’t see a change in the controller…

Backwards compatibility is a must for the Wii, but a small, iterative approach won’t do. Considering that most Wii gamers are casual and/or younger, buyers will be more likely to ask what the huge differences are to justify a hardware swap-out. Merely adding a small speed bump and 1080p resolution isn’t enough, and we wouldn’t gamble against Nintendo finally jumping back into the competitive fray and offering a true graphics-monster. Hardware isn’t taking huge leaps like it did several years ago, which means incorporating cutting-edge graphics into a next-gen console isn’t as costly as it once was.

Of course, Wiimotes will likely stick around, and they may see small, iterative improvements. Nintendo will either continue playing up their ground-breaking motion controllers and keep them primary to the experience (unlike add-ons like Move and Kinect), else reveal an even more innovative control scheme (which is unlikely).

Lastly, for licensing and cost reasons alone, DVD is much more likely than BluRay… Look for a $250-300 price tag.

We’re rather inclined to suggest that Nintendo might forego optical media entirely and just push on with digital distribution. The Wii has been a successful platform for this already, and the technology is no longer proof-of-concept, with XBox Arcade having solidified the concept in gamer’s minds. If a new Nintendo console doesn’t compete graphically with other 8th-gen consoles, then digital distribution is even more likely, since it’s graphics that primarily increase file size. Either way, Nintendo will likely try to come in at the same price-point the Wii did, managing to beat the competition by at least $50 at the register.

Sony, the other Japanese Empire.

The biggest problem Sony had is fragmented, inconsistent hardware. Early PS3s sported on-chip backwards compatibility and a slew of USB ports, while later versions had software-based backwards compatibility that was later phased out. Unlike other consoles, the PS3 has lost more features than it’s gained, and that phenomenon has put many would-be owners off.

Given their entirely unimaginative and conservative hardware philosophy, I see a faster processor, same “gnome hands only” blocky controller, and of course included BluRay and hard drives. Boring but powerful and probably at a significantly lower price point than the PS3 started at, likely $350-400.

Sony has indeed played it safe, focusing its energies on what’s worked in the past, and the next-gen Sony console likely won’t be any different. Cutting edge hardware, a similar controller scheme, and a high price tag are to be expected, being traditional Sony fare. Even Nintendo and Sega played more loosey-goosey with hardware reveals in the past, whereas Sony is sticking to an old formula that may not play out well in the long-run. We’ve argued in the past that Sony’s largest benefactor is its reputation, but with poor moves like removing features over time, that reputation isn’t as strong as it used to be. If Sony doesn’t do more than react to its competitors (e.g. Move), then its 8th generation console will be like the Nintendo 64.

Microsoft, the Evil One.

Microsoft has been reactive to its competition as well, but they’ve taken better notes than Sony. While everyone expected a Wiimote copy-cat accessory, Microsoft responded with Kinect, and they’ve refined their UI and online offerings well. (The 360 UI still sucks, but it’s gotten better.) The big question will be how well Kinect does, and whether a more powerful Kinect accessory will be standard-fare in Microsoft’s next-gen entry.

I still see the “Xbox Next” being drive-free with an optional BluRay drive, ala their approach to the failed HD DVD.

It’s doubtful that Microsoft would suddenly jump on the BluRay bandwagon; they’ve actually signed onto a multi-company agreement not to adopt BluRay, along with such faux allies as Apple. Few companies are hedging their bets on BluRay anymore, and it’s arguably the last optical media format anyway. Just as the Wii has proven to have a good online marketplace, XBox Arcade has proven itself quite successful, offering many indy and older titles. Chances are, the next-gen Microsoft console will keep Arcade alive, and offer bigger, more spectacular games.

Of course, by offering digital downloads for blockbuster titles, Microsoft’s next console will absolutely need a larger hard drive, and for this they may take Apple’s cue and consider going with more reliable SSDs. The only obstacle here is cost, but with a Microsoft 8th generation console release in 2012, that may not be a huge issue, especially if they can skirt optical media and take a larger cut of indy sales.

Apple, the unlikely player.

It shouldn’t be a huge surprise that iOS has become a huge platform for mobile gaming, and with iOS now entering the living room thanks to the new Apple TV, it’s not a huge stretch to assume that Apple may use this as a springboard for home video gaming. We agree with Maxator, however, that full-on support of this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Don’t expect Apple to join the console wars anytime soon. Jobs has never made an effort to support gaming and with the entry costs of the console market being so high, I can’t see him hurting his stock price on a longterm risky investment. Plus, they are already happily making 20% on every repackaged Atari game on the iPad/Phone.

While Jobs has spoken to Apple gaming in the past, each Apple gaming headline has stood alone, with no real followup from Apple. With one failed console already on their books, Apple’s only now getting real gaming press because of how successful iOS has become. Apple’s 30% cut on all iOS apps is definitely helping the company out, and the large number of iOS gamers is notable by Apple using games in first-party advertising. But, most huge iOS gaming titles are casual games, and while deeper games on iOS do exist, they’re only now starting to really take off (e.g. id’s Rage).

Any Apple entry into the console wars will be natural, built on developer desire rather than Apple outright declaring a gaming console. Whereas most console companies have positioned their devices as gaming devices first and media devices second, Apple will work the other way around if they do eventually want to offer big-screen gaming. This means that any Apple console effort will remain dependent on the success of the Apple TV, which could easily evolve to support a solid gaming platform built on existing hardware. (Imagine multi-touch, mostly buttonless controllers that look like a handheld Magic Trackpad, complete with gyroscope.)

Dreams aside, Apple is already doing what many thought impossible: challenging Nintendo on the mobile gaming front. Apple doesn’t need to position their devices as gaming devices, because developers have already embraced them as such, even though they’re not really considered gaming devices as far as their primary functionality goes. Still, expect better games on iOS devices as the 8th generation console wars rage, but don’t expect to Apple to take this market on head-to-head just yet.

OnLive, the underdog hero.

While OnLive may not be able to compete in the motion-control arena, it’s a notable platform that deserves mention, even if it wasn’t on Maxator’s list. OnLive is a platform that bridges the gap between PC games and console games, and with it’s “console” client being offered for a mere $100, it already competes with the Big Three on graphical terms. They key to OnLive will be leveraging the success of big-name MMOs, which console gamers might want access to, but may not have the PC desktop power to play well. Since OnLive should be able to scale to play these titles as well as its current library (which is more console-centric), OnLive immediately establishes a niche market that’s still unrealized. The big question here is how fast OnLive can offer blockbuster titles compared to the Big Three, and how fast they can grow their infrastructure. Potentially, however, OnLive can challenge any of the Big Three as far as traditional console gaming goes, and could make hardware upgrades for PC gaming a thing of the past, too.

Similar Posts:

• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…


• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…


• The Apple TV as a console. – Over the past couple days, we’ve seen considerable speculation about Apple’s involvement in televisi…

We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anything exciting about it yet. Maybe it’s better than Sony’s Move, and advancing what the Wii provided from a technological perspective. But let’s step back for a moment and look at where this all began, with Nintendo’s current console offering.

We picked up a Wii on release. We waited in line overnight, for crying out loud. And we did thoroughly enjoy the initial titles we played, but let’s be clear: they weren’t groundbreaking titles. Good titles with motion control, yes, but not groundbreaking titles in and of themselves. Maybe motion control is what made the Wii unique, and sold casual gaming to the masses, and maybe even pushed consoles into family entertainment centers where parents were previously skeptical of consoles as family-friendly entertainment. But as far as titles go, there’s no single Nintendo Wii game that’s more fun to play than any great title on any other console lacking motion control. (For example, the original Mario Kart was no less fun than the current Mario Kart is today.)

Yes, we’ll make a small exception for workout titles; EA Sports is a fantastic at-home workout for those without a gym who want to get into better cardiovascular shape, and traditional control schemes obviously wouldn’t work in this regard. But EA Sports, and games of this ilk, are not exactly fun gaming titles in the traditional sense.

So now with Kinect set to release late this year, we have another motion control scheme, albeit without a physical controller necessary. And this may work well for casual games, and probably pretty good for workout titles also (there will, after all, be an EA Sports title for Kinect). But for other gaming? If anything, Microsoft is looking to grab more Wii users and capitalize on the fact that a good chunk of gamers own both a Wii, and an XBox/PS3. Capturing the “casual” gaming crowd is an expected move for Microsoft, who has already moved in that direction during the XBox dashboard re-do (avatars, et al).

We’re highly skeptical that Kinect will bring anything worthwhile to the table if one already has a Wii sitting next to their XBox; Kinect is the Wii peripheral for the XBox. It’s a cool idea, but nothing more than a novelty, which conveniently comes out mid-way through the XBox 360 lifecycle. If anything, it combats Nintendo’s move of potentially releasing an HD Wii, forcing Nintendo to up their ante and delay a new product release more in line with Microsoft and Sony’s next generation, else simply throw in the towel like Sega did after the Dreamcast.

Either way, the Kinect alone won’t win Microsoft the battle here; the Kinect is a reactive move by Microsoft. Not in the way that the Move is Sony’s reaction to the Wii (which is playing catch-up more than anything else), but in the sense of allowing the XBox to be a competitor to the Wii on all angles – not just meeting the Wii’s capabilities, but arguably exceeding them without adding cumbersome, physical controllers. This move will likely pay off in keeping the 360 situated as the premiere US console, but probably won’t force Nintendo out of the console business entirely, unless Microsoft is able to capture some choice IP for Kinect-based games.

We just don’t see the Kinect doing much to sway the console wars one way or the other at this point. The Wii has already been widely adopted, and so the potential installation-base in Wii-less households appears very small. Unless there are some killer titles out there that make having Kinect outrageously desireable (and we haven’t seen any yet), why drop the money on Kinect?

Similar Posts:

• Project Natal: death knell to the Wii. – Reviewing the news coming out of E3 this week has shown itself to be a dreary affair. One, because w…


• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…


• The 8th console generation. – It’s hard to believe that we’re nearing the end of the life cycle for the 7th generation of video ga…

Despite Apple’s sordid foray into the video gaming market with the ill-fated Pippin, TUAW’s Mike Schramm believes that Apple is willing to give console gaming another go. His speculation is based in large part on a piece by Erik Sherman at BNET, in which Sherman notes various patents Apple filed, and various individuals Apple hired, as evidence of Apple’s gaming console initiative.

No TV console aspirations.

We’ll address Schramm first, by noting that an escapade into console-gaming-land would be a horribly poor move for Apple. Apple’s success with the iPod, and later the iPhone, was due to them being able to put a decently-priced but amazingly polished device into consumer’s hands. Before the iPod, mp3 players weren’t particularly notable aside from the fact that they existed at all. Apple pretty much defined the portable mp3 market, and arguably, created the mainstream movement towards legal mp3 downloads. With the iPhone, Apple entered a market densely packed with crappy phones, where even the best sported comparably poor user interfaces and little real online functionality. With the AppStore, Apple blew the doors open on downloadable content, and once again redefined a market, now being emulated by contenders.

The console market is nothing like the portable music or cell phone markets were before Apple got involved. The console market consist of only three key players, all of whom do a great job at building systems, and all of whom have significant industry backing in the form of third-party titles. Plus, all have an indy developer component, and significant mindshare among consumers.

That’s not to say that Apple couldn’t be successful by entering the console wars, but their timing would be way off. Releasing a console before circa 2013, when Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony will reveal their latest offerings, would be dooming an Apple console to irrelevance in only four years time. Furthermore, Apple would fight an uphill battle, akin to what Microsoft dealt with when they unveiled the original XBox. Only, Apple’s experience with the mainstream gaming market (Microsoft had years of experience dealing with PC gaming), is virtually null prior to the proliferation of iPhone games. Simply put, the console marketplace is too volatile a place for Apple to push itself into – the competition is too fierce, so why take an unnecessary risk? Apple is better suited to define a market with much less competition, and the handheld gaming market is a prime target.

The accidental success.

We’re not so sure that Apple expected to be successful with iPhone gaming. Surely, Apple expected to find games developed for the iPhone, but titles from big-name publishers using big-name IP? Maybe Apple even built the iPhone hardware to be capable of running games with decent graphics and framerates, but the very lack of input options makes us question Apple’s expectations that the iPhone might become a veritable Gameboy and PSP competitor. But here we are: leveraging the AppStore’s framework, the iPhone is able to market pretty amazing games via a convenient, cutting-edge distribution model, all for a much cheaper price than games released for the Gameboy or PSP. Like the proliferation of the Wii, iPhone gaming is build on a solid foundation of more casual titles, but as time goes on, we’re now seeing more and more “mature” titles requiring more of a user’s focus. It’s one thing for Apple to have given Mac gaming a mere head-nod in the past, it’s another for Apple to dismiss a clearly growing phenomenon. So, Apple will continue embracing iPhone gaming, and that’s at the heart of Sherman’s observations.

The acquisition of Bob Dreblin, Raka Koduri, Mark Papermaster, and Richard Teversham, might not even indicate Apple assembling a “dream team” for the iPhone gaming market, but let’s assume this to be true. Dreblin’s contribution to the Gamecube CPU may be most telling: the Gamecube was underpowered compared to offerings from Microsoft and Sony, but the thing was admittedly compact. If anything, the rest of the team would play into embedded gaming just as easily as they would in traditional console gaming, not to mention Apple’s acquisition of PA Semi and their investment in PowerVR. If Apple’s going to be serious about iPhone gaming, they’ll want to develop hardware specific for that purpose, especially since this kind of specialized hardware will still be able to power the thousands of non-gaming iPhone applications. By controlling the hardware supply chain specifically, Apple ensures that the competition won’t be building similar products, and furthermore, secures its hardware from additional vulnerabilities.

Sherman makes some good observations about Apple’s patent filings. If anything, it should be pretty clear that Apple is looking to link gaming and outside media. Much as iTunes can suggest music based on one’s existing music library, application 20080076495 proposes similar functionality, only rather than just making recommendations, games could identify appropriate music to play based on a user’s preference. For example, a scene in a game calling for fast-paced, action-packed combat, may query a user’s music library for metal or hard rock music, and based on the user’s ratings, will play a top song in that category. In other words, games will be minimally tailored to suit the user’s tastes based on other media they own. The patent application, at absolute minimum, forms an extension to the iTunes store, in that games may be recommended based on songs a user owns: lots of metal songs may mean a user prefers more action-oriented games, for instance.

The other patent applications Sherman identifies give further insight into Apple’s direction with iPhone games, but it should be pretty clear by now that Apple is looking at solidifying the iPhone game user-base. Arguably, Apple is already ahead of the game with their application distribution model, as Nintendo and Sony are now moving ahead with their own online stores. The difference is that the iPhone is a more flexible system, is nearly always connected to the internet, and meets an application price-point easily suited for growth. By the time the AppStore starts including games costing $20 or higher, the handheld gaming market will be a shitstorm of competition, because Apple will have become a major contender well before that, assuming the next iPhone version further advances a long-term gaming plan (and the 3GS appears to herald this). At that time, Nintendo and Sony better have stepped up their game, because unlike with the traditional console market, the handheld market is far more malleable, especially when the iPhone’s chief gaming success is drawing spontaneous buyers into a web of easily-accessible, easily-downloadable content.

So for those longing for an Apple console, look no further than your iPhone. While it’s already successfully integrated the iPod and cell phone, it’s now looking to devour your friendly neighborhood Gameboy, too.

Similar Posts:

• Bring AppStore-banned apps to Cydia/Installer.app! – Per Nullriver’s own statement, Apple’s final judgement on NetShare is simple: perma-banned from the …


• Microsoft wants another monopoly, or, the Vivendi Deal. – Microsoft is yet again reaching out with greedy hands for a bigger market share in the console gamin…


• iOS devices as mobile consoles. – That iOS games are threatening the traditional mobile gaming market is no longer a surprise. Today, …

Reviewing the news coming out of E3 this week has shown itself to be a dreary affair. One, because we had a chance to attend the expo before other priorities revealed themselves (and thus didn’t), and two, because as the hoarse voice in our head mocks, “Perhaps you’re just not a gamer anymore.” And maybe we’re not – we’re certainly not console aficionados anymore, having shed the weight of the console wars many years ago. It was by chance that we again took up the console call with Microsoft’s enormous black boxen, and later again with the innovative Wii. But let’s be clear: our gaming time is a mere sliver compared to when we vapidly devoured every PC title worth playing, and the prospect of playing competitively as we did in Counterstrike years before is simply not realistic anymore. Indeed, we may even argue that our three-round battle with World of Warcraft was the end of our earnest gaming days, but perhaps this is an overstatement: time is simply one variable that affects our level of excitement for games these days, and in short, most new titles simply do little for us. One, because we’re now more interested in titles that don’t require massive time investments per session, and two, because the vast majority of titles remaining either aren’t particularly good or simply don’t titillate us.

Sure, there’s the occasional game of note that grabs our attention, like Fallout 3 or its DLC. There’s even a couple titles from E3 that peak our interest, be it Borderlands or Grindhouse. But most titles simply bore us, and we happen to attribute much of that boredom to the simple fact that we dislike, nay, loathe the typical console control scheme. Look, we’re PC gamers at heart (it’s why we took years to come back to consoles), and quite simply, there’s nothing better than a keyboard and mouse to control most games. Especially FPS titles. In fact, much as we loved Fallout 3, we purchased it for the 360, and the reliance on crappy console controls was our biggest complaint.

This hatred of typical console controls is why we had such high hopes for the Nintendo Revolution Wii. Yet sadly, as innovative as it was, the Wii proved to be little more than a novelty. Indeed, most games we’ve played on the Wii are either novelty titles (like Wii Sports) which wouldn’t occupy our long-term interest anyway, else titles that really didn’t benefit much from the Wii remotes in the first place. But rather than poo-poo all over the Wii yet again, let’s admit that Nintendo’s effort was good, even if the result (prior to Motion Plus, maybe) was marginal.

For those who love casual games, particularly the mini-games Nintendo titles are known for, the Wii certainly stands out from the 360 and PS3. And that’s why Nintendo has managed to survive this round of the console wars, and why it was inevitable that Microsoft and Sony would want a piece of the motion-control pie. So set out both companies did, and both revealed their Wii-killing accessories at E3. The PS3 did so with little fanfare, while Microsoft just made Natal a gamer household name.

For those asleep while E3 was going on, Natal isn’t a controller, it’s the lack of a controller. Natal’s hardware component is a camera that captures physical movements, such that 360 gamers don’t need to hold a controller to swing a sword, or punch, or jump, or do whatever. Natal, capable of facial recognition, will not only act as an interface to the 360, but to a whole slew of new games that will track user movement as an input mechanism. In theory (and from what E3 videos show us), Natal is just as sophisticated as the Wii in terms of motion control, and will likely compete well against Motion Plus equipped Wiis too. The question Microsoft and Sony have been asking is this: “If we can duplicate Wii functionality on a more powerful system, won’t we lure gamers away from the Wii?” And that’s a good question to ask, if it weren’t for the lead Nintendo already has in the motion control arena. While Sony is still vested in the original question, however, Microsoft made steps not just to duplicate Wii functionality, but to move well beyond it, making their original question moot.

It’s like this: every peripheral that intends to use Wii functionality will likely be built to interface with the Wii remote. If not, then the Wii remote still needs to be used in conjunction with the peripheral. For example, why does EA Sports Active use a resistance band instead of a dumbbell? Never mind the acute advantages of a resistance band for casual athletes over a heavier exercise device: a dumbbell would simply never work alongside the Wii remote and nunchuk. Only a resistance band will work since EA Sports Active is ultimately tied to the Wii’s controllers to function.

The same game on the 360 (which is indeed coming, BTW), with Natal as an input device, is far more flexible. (It will likely be cheaper, too, since the game won’t require a nunchuk pouch to be part of the package.) Indeed, EA Sports Active, with Natal, requires the user to hold no device at all, so they could just as easily use a resistance band as they could a dumbbell. In other words, the flexibility a workout game can have with Natal is hugely significant, as a Natal-equipped 360 with EA Sports Active could easily be used with a resistance band, dumbbells, a kettlebells, et al.

About the only disadvantage to Natal versus the Wii is what the camera can’t see, as would be the case if the Wii remote is used behind the player. And that’s a relatively unlikely scenario. There’s also the Wii’s added advantage of having buttons present on the Wii remote while the swinging happens, but Natal can still be used in conjunction with a controller, remote, or other peripheral, so it’s not like Natal’s making gamers give up button presses entirely. If anything, it solves more problems than it creates, and ultimately trumps both Nintendo’s and Sony’s motion control offerings. The trick for Microsoft will be in pricing Natal competitively, and that means cheaply, in order to keep a Natal-equipped 360 close in price to the Wii, and there’s obviously some difficulty in that. If Microsoft can work this formula out, however, there’s no reason they can’t succeed in luring the Wii faithful away from Nintendo’s current-gen icon.

For gamers like us, Natal presents an interesting new landscape. We can likely expect not only casual games that Wii gamers know and love, but since we’re talking the 360, more mature titles that use Natal as well. And that presents some nice possibilities, as we can easily visualize Natal control schemes for fighting games, FPS, etc, as long as there’s some basic method to control avatar movement. For melee-oriented games, Natal is a no-brainer in this regard, as a nunchuk-like accessory would be enough to compliment the Wii. Even FPS could work incredibly well with a nunchuk with trigger component. The next question is, without that component (and there’s no indication that one will exist at Natal launch), will Natal games be limited to too casual games? Right now, Natal offers a rather incredible control scheme with the potential to add motion control to games that the Wii simply can’t handle, effectively becoming what the Wii should have been at launch. But Microsoft could just as easily fail on this front, by either focusing too strongly on party games, or not pushing the possibilities for Natal-enabled mature titles to third-party developers. In other words, Microsoft needs to push the idea that Natal is core to the 360 experience, else it will become just another accessory soon to be forgotten by the general 360 user (think Power Pad, the PS2 camera, etc).

That hoarse voice in our head, it’s chiding us. And if Natal proves to be little more than another hardware console novelty, then maybe it’s right. But we’re pretty certain that Natal can recapture our love for console gaming by making motion control both fun and efficient as an input medium. If not, we’re taking our gaming hat and heading back to PC territory. Even if it’s only for a few minutes a week.

Similar Posts:

• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…


• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…


• Dispute the value, not the price. – A recent Gizmodo post caught our eye, in which Adam Frucci attempts to draw comparisons between the …

A recent Gizmodo post caught our eye, in which Adam Frucci attempts to draw comparisons between the current generation consoles by price. Asserts Frucci, “the prices of all three consoles are incredibly close, and you can obviously fiddle with these configurations to change them.” And fiddle with Fucci’s ridiculous numbers we can, and should, because Frucci’s evaluation of the Wii is sadly mismanaged, because not only does he include an extra $80 for four Motion Plus add-ons that do nothing for the console right now because they’re not even available yet, but he, in turn, leaves the $90 cost of the XBox 360′s wi-fi adapter out of his baseline console pricing scheme. Is there any consistency to his madness?

Frucci may as well inflate the price of the Wii by another $80 because he left out the Wii Balance Board. Oh, and the price of component cables (even though they’re only 50 cents at Amazon). Come on, Frucci, pull your head out of your ass and realize that the cost of a console doesn’t include accessories that are currently unavailable, and, in fact, don’t have any games out which support them. That’s not to say that the Motion Plus won’t take off, but if they do, they may very well simply be incorporated into the Wii remote at a future date anyway. Why emphasize them in a console price comparison as though they are required for Wii gaming today? Should we also add to the XBox 360′s price because of the rumoured Wii-like remote that may ship for the 360 later this year?

If Frucci’s not a Wii-hater (and a 360 fan-boy to boot), we don’t know why he’d opt for the more expensive Wii controller charging station, instead of the $33 one also available at Amazon. And why does Frucci incorporate the price of a quad charging station for the PS3 and Wii, but only a dual charging station for the 360? By our estimates, Frucci’s Wii price should sit squarely at $457, while the prices for the PS3 and 360 are $557 and $604, respectively (wi-fi included). We even threw the PS3 and 360 a bone here by removing the price of two games, since Wii titles are not only $10 cheaper per title by Frucci’s estimates, but the Wii comes with a game, which, via Frucci’s numbers, means that the Wii is another $50 cheaper.

In other words, games aside, a Wii is approximately $100 cheaper than a PS3 and about $150 cheaper than a 360 assuming one needs four controllers and a charging station. And that doesn’t even consider the annual costs of XBox Live!, which accrues at least $40/year just for online multiplayer. So even with Frucci’s silly notion of including Motion Plus in this comparison, that’s only two years of multiplayer gaming on the 360, which we gather, most 360 owners have already paid for (aww, shucks).

Sadly, Frucci and Gizmodo haven’t done anything but add flames to the latest console war. It’s one thing to dispute the value of money spent on each console, but that’s subjective depending on who the user is. From a pure price stand-point, however, the Wii clearly wins, and even though we’re fond of the 360 as a heavyweight gaming machine, the truth is that it’s the most expensive system available, even compared to Sony’s monstrosity. That’s true even if we don’t include the 360′s wireless adapter, because Live! is disproportionately expensive considering that Sony and Nintendo offer their online services for free.

Why all the hullabaloo? Because in a highly subjective argument regarding the console wars, there’s still a capacity for objectivity, and price is one of those. One can expound upon the merits of any console to argue for its purchase, but that doesn’t resolve the ugly reality of real costs. A solo gamer looking to play online can pick up a Wii and get gaming for just over $250. Fact. That same gamer can’t get down and dirty with a PS3 or 360 without dropping about $100 more. Fact. Buying three additional controllers doesn’t make the Wii any less desirable from a pure price standpoint over its competition.

Let’s not argue value by obfuscating costs to try making a point, and stick with the truth, shall we? We’re looking at you, Frucci.

Similar Posts:

• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…


• The 8th console generation. – It’s hard to believe that we’re nearing the end of the life cycle for the 7th generation of video ga…


• Welcome back, WASD. – When Goldeneye came out for the N64, I was less than impressed, considering that First Person Shoote…

It’s foolish to deny that the cloud will dominate PC use in the future; dumb terminals made sense when raw computing power was unnecessary, and we’ll come full-circle as soon as broadband is ubiquitous. For nearly all applications, all an end-user needs is a browser with an internet connection; there’s an easy case to be made that a majority of computer users could boot straight to a browser, relying entirely on Google applications to fulfill their computing needs. This minimization of digital clutter is intensely attractive to us, because realistically, most of our own computer use is bounded to the internet, which is a proven medium for presenting information.

And that’s why OnLive is so fascinating. It’s a gaming service that will likely leverage core web technologies to present a list of demos and full-on games for consumer consumption. And these games will not be typical Flash-based titles, but high-end games that are typically played on current-gen consoles or state-of-the-art gaming PCs. And it all works on a low-end system because the games will actually be played remotely, on an OnLive server. Rather than a monitor connected to this server, however, the visual output is streamed to the end-user over the internet through a browser plugin, so it’s like playing a console game where the console’s hardware is many miles away, but the TV is right in one’s own living room. The idea is so simple, we wonder why no one’s come up with it before.

Technically speaking, OnLive’s video streaming should be cake – high-resolution streaming isn’t new, and judging from typical HD streams available from Hulu and the major networks, there shouldn’t be any serious doubt as to OnLive’s success in this area. Unfortunately, this is only half the puzzle, because unlike typical streaming video offerings, OnLive is all about an exchange of data. That is to say, a user doesn’t just click “play” and sit back, but rather inputs data through a controller over the course of the streaming. When these inputs are received by the OnLive server, they’re processed, and the resulting video is now sent back to the user. In other words, lag is less of an issue as latency, because the video sent to the user needs to match up with what the user just pressed on his controller. The further from an OnLive server the user is, the greater concern latency becomes.

Admittedly, we don’t know much about OnLive’s server distribution yet. If OnLive takes the route of legacy dial-up companies like AOL and Prodigy, we can expect OnLive to piggyback the infrastructure at the local ISP level, and in this manner, slowly build a network of servers based on the demand for OnLive’s service. The clear advantage here is that servers will be distributed nationally, so as to alleviate latency concerns in the best way possible.

But let’s say that the latency issue is overcome with reasonable ease, and that graphics will down-sample when lag comes into play. We’re still not convinced that consumers will tolerate the hiccups that video streaming occasionally produces, but even with that sorted out, we’re now left with balancing OnLive’s subscription costs with the initial expenses of a typical console purchase. In short, end-users will have to grapple with the idea that they can shell out $300 or so dollars plus game costs, else some small amount for OnLive hardware plus a recurring monthly expense. At what point does the average user go with the monthly subscription to stay cost-effective? For a fresh XBox 360 purchase, plus a year of XBox Live!, and a game purchase once a month for the life of that Live! subscription, we’re looking at a rough cost of $950. Assuming a hardware cost of $100 and a reasonable $20/month subscription, that $950 gives us unlimited game time for about 3.5 years using OnLive. Best part is that the XBox will ultimately be replaced by the next big thing (requiring another hardware purchase), while OnLive’s hardware upgrades should be transparent to the user. Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Yeah, it sounds great initially, but that’s before the realization that a $240 annual investment by the end-user ($340 for the first year, assuming the $100 hardware cost) arguably won’t cover the hardware costs and maintenance fees for the OnLive service. An XBox 360 is designed to run one copy of a game, and while one could argue that an OnLive server’s configuration will be able to serve up quite a few more people, we’re still likely talking one dedicated graphics card per customer, and those don’t come cheap. This isn’t even taking into account the licenses per game that OnLive will be running, and with this comes another initial obstacle for OnLive: the success of a console at launch is all about the game library. If OnLive ships with a small library that doesn’t expand steadily, then OnLive won’t attract a large enough audience to build up the needed momentum.

And with game libraries, we’re talking clear limitations on what OnLive can offer on account of their setup. Many folks are enamored with the idea that OnLive will be a stand-in for PC gaming, because OnLive’s servers will be upgraded automagically over time. That’s a faux pas, however, because PC gaming’s strengths are in add-ons, conversions, and other customizations. OnLive severely limits PC gaming because all software, including any add-ons, are controlled entirely by OnLive. This means no playing MMORPGs with custom UI enhancements, limited flexibility in controller options, no beta conversions/mods, et al. That’s why OnLive, for all intents and purposes, is a more likely console replacement than a gaming PC replacement. It simply happens that OnLive works with PCs and Macs, but this is just a cheap way to get out of using a TV, not at cheaply proving a PC gaming experience.

OnLive’s gaming library pretty much acknowledges the notion that the service is aimed to compete against consoles and not PCs. Burnout, Tomb Raider, World of Goo, Crysis, LEGO Batman… we’ve seen these before. Where’s the die-hard PC games that don’t have great console ports, like RTS games, MMORPGs, etc? We’re looking at rehashed console games here, which OnLive wants to use as a springboard before developers start looking at OnLive as a serious competitor. That means that OnLive users shouldn’t expect any worthwhile exclusives for some time. And a second question begs our attention: since these titles are all available already in the console battlescape, why not just get them for the consoles we already own?

The math we mused over before changes some when we’re looking at the current state of console gaming. Assuming a gamer even buys 12 titles in a year, they spent about $600. An OnLive subscriber, on the other hand, will spend $240 that same year. But at only six titles per year, the numbers are already looking more similar, which means that casual gamers will see less benefits from OnLive, especially since their purchases are more likely to be blockbuster titles that OnLive won’t even see for at least a year. When all is said and done, OnLive looks to sport a formula that would be great for hardcore gamers, if only OnLive was mature enough to offer a larger gaming library of blockbuster titles. Asking a gamer to invest in OnLive’s offerings at release, however, is about as bad as proposing someone buy the Wii but stay away from first-party titles.

What it comes down to is this: early adapter aren’t going to get anything from OnLive that they can’t already get on current-gen consoles, but it’s these early adapters that will be necessary to grow OnLive’s offerings to a point where the average gamer will be attracted to the service. For PC gamers, OnLive is a complete bust, because the closest thing to playing PC games on the cheap that we’ll see anytime soon is in something like NVidia’s ION, not OnLive. If OnLive actually manages to survive such that it’s around when the next console refresh happens, then it may be a worthwhile investment for gamers so as to avoid expensive hardware costs.

That all said, OnLive could have a couple tricks up its sleeve, like licensing copies of popular MMORPGs, and figuring out a secure way to let customers upload, or activate via OnLive’s web interface, popular add-ons. Realistically, though, we’re not holding our breathe.

Similar Posts:

• OnLive barely alive? – Twenty-one months ago, we expressed skepticism over OnLive, the gaming service offering streaming vi…


• Apple’s console already exists. – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …


• Dispute the value, not the price. – A recent Gizmodo post caught our eye, in which Adam Frucci attempts to draw comparisons between the …

We didn’t like Fable 2, and as far as RPGs are concerned, we totally thought Fallout 3 trumped Fable 2 in every possible way.

While our tastes are understandably subjective, we acknowledge that some people may actually like playing a game where the Sims meets fantasy, and where hack’n slash combat is practically mandatory to succeed. Still, we’re happy that the overall theme in the gaming blogosphere is that Fable 2 is not worthy of top honours, and is consistently pushed behind Bethesda’s Fallout 3 by reviewers. Whether this brings us delight because Molyneux needs to be put in his place now and again, or because we immaturely like to grin and say, “We told you so,” is not the point: despite stronger Fable 2 sales, Fallout 3 is a better regarded title by hardcore gamers.

We still haven’t played Gears of War 2 yet, but Fallout 3 definitely gets our top honours for 2008′s top XBox 360 games. Castle Crashers deserves a mention, and Rock Band 2 does too for greatly improving the franchise. Even GTAIV was excellent, though primarily for character design and multiplayer options, and not for the similarly-frustrating rapport-building that Fable 2 makes players participate in. Hopefully 2009 will drop the emote-emphasis in future titles, and focus on action and puzzle gameplay instead of emulating a glorified chat-room. Hear that Sony? Home is destined for failure. Maybe you and Molyneux can pitch in and get a new drawing board.

Similar Posts:

• Molyneux a filthy liar? – In IGN’s recent preview of Fable II, Hilary Goldstein mentions that the now-infamous Pub Games “glit…


• Song redundancy in Rock Band. – After much time believing that the Guitar Hero franchise was not for him, my pal Maxator recently fo…


• A night with Fable 2. – While we had high expectations for Fable 2 (being fans of the original and all) we became somewhat w…

In IGN’s recent preview of Fable II, Hilary Goldstein mentions that the now-infamous Pub Games “glitch,” which allows one to cheat at a card game to earn enormous amounts of money for import into Fable II, was planned by Molyneux all along. Molyneux claims that having used the cheat will enact repercussions in Fable II once the moolah is imported, which sounds like an incredibly sneaky design decision, albeit one not overly elegant given the lack of in-game warning or clues.

Molyneux’ sneakiness is placed into question, however, when one realizes that the “glitch” was patched recently, suggesting that it wasn’t intended after all, else why patch it? The more likely explanation is that Molyneux wanted to cover his ass and not seem like his studio is incompetent at beta testing. Chances are, any in-game repercussions were added in last-minute, so as to seem competent.

Had the glitch been planned all along, one would think the mechanics for using it would be slicker, and that despite knowledge of it getting out in the first place, any patch issued would simply warn users that there really could be in-game consequences. At a time when our impressions of Molyneux were rising, this debacle is starting to sour us to Molyneux again, which is a real shame. He really needs to let his games do the talking for him.

Similar Posts:

• Gamers agree: Fallout 3 > Fable 2. – We didn’t like Fable 2, and as far as RPGs are concerned, we totally thought Fallout 3 trumped Fabl…


• Stop buying our heroes, Microsoft. – When Microsoft purchased Bungie during the dawn of the XBox, it would be unfair to say that there wa…


• A night with Fable 2. – While we had high expectations for Fable 2 (being fans of the original and all) we became somewhat w…