Theorizing a Big Apple Push Into Gaming

Ian Lamont writes "Terrence Russell has outlined an interesting theory about what industry Apple intends to break into next. He points to games. Forget Pippin II, or an iMac gaming rig — he thinks the mobile realm is where Apple will make a big product push. It's not the first bit of speculation about Apple's renewed interest in gaming, but Russell's theory may have more legs, considering Apple's invitation to develop games on the iPhone SDK, its strong mobile product line, and a Apple trademark extension filed three months ago."

Wouldn't that be funny if . . .

Wouldn't it be hilarious if they finally released Duke Nukem Forever . . . available exclusively on the MacOS platform?!?! ;-)

Sales of Macs would skyrocket! Plus, DNF might actually run!

Re:Wouldn't that be funny if . . .

Apple Gaming Platform + Duke Nukem Forever? That sir, is the end of the Universe as we know it.

"Big Apple"

"Theorizing a Big Apple Push Into Gaming"

Phew, I thought New York was going to get into gaming. Had me worried for a new york minute there.

Remember history

Remember the history of all Apple products. [misterbg.org]

Um, no.

Over the years, Apple has done everything short of spitting in the face of game developers.

Yes, there will be mobile games for the iPhone. I expect to see a Bejeweled port in short order. No, the iPhone will not be the next handheld gaming device a la Nintendo DS, Sony PSP, etc. It's capabilities will be similar to Windows Mobile, with fewer games. All development will be done by third parties who Apple will do nothing to encourage and whom Apple will end up screwing over (because they always screw over the developers). i.e. "We've just released the mandatory iPhone update X, which breaks all 3rd-party apps, and we didn't bother to tell developers this would happen, and no, we won't tell you what we changed to make it easy to fix your apps. We hate you."

yay!

I can't wait for my controller with only one button.

Of course they're heading into games

Of course Apple's going to push the iPhone as a gaming platform- they'd be stupid not to. Why? Because it already IS the platform- they're already selling a mobile device with the form factor, screen, and processing power required for a good handheld gaming system. So failing to make it into one simply due to lack of the games themselves would basically be silly. I don't think Apple set out to build a competitor for the DS & PSP, but if they're selling competitive hardware anyway, why on earth wouldn't they want to make it compete? Especially if doing so is as simple as beefing up the SDK with gaming API's and encouraging independent developers to do the rest. And there's really not any question about that, because Apple's already done that. [apple.com] They invited in game developers to use their new SDK, and the game developers say they're impressed with what a great game development platform Apple's made the iPhone. It seems that this is yesterday's news; Apple already announced the iPhone as a portable gaming platform, and already has major game developers on board. This article is speculating that Apple might do something that Steve said they've already done in his last keynote.

If you want crazy theories about what Apple could do as far as gaming goes... how about, instead of selling Mac Pros with two quad-core Xeons, they start making them with one quad-core Xeon and one Cell. Sure, it would take a mountain of work to make Xcode optimize its compiler to execute code for running on two different architectures simultaneously, especially one as odd as the Cell, but Xcode already generates universal binaries for x86 and PPC at the click of a button, and Apple's got the resources these days to make Xcode optimize as much as possible for the Cell, and make decisions about which code to run on the cell and which to run on the Xeon.

Why would they try a crazy architecture like that? Well, in the markets Mac Pros are aimed at; video editing, rendering, Photoshop, scientific computing- Cells can, in certain circumstances, run circles around the competition. It could grant a speed advantage for certain tasks that Windows PC's would have no hope of matching. Throw in a quad Xeon, a Cell, and finish up making the OS offload some processing to the graphics card, and you've got a computer with three extremely different and very fast processors to throw at different sorts of problems.

But wait, didn't I say something about games? Well, if you're selling a computer with a Cell in it already, along with a graphics card, (how long could it be before Apple starts offering Blu-ray on Mac Pros...), could they license PS3 compatibility from Sony? They wouldn't even have to license it, Sony could sell a PS3 compatibility client for Mac Pros. Before you say "Sony would never do that," remember that Sony loses money on each PS3- they're in this for market dominance, not hardware profits.

Anyway, that's my crazy conspiracy theory regarding Apple gaming, to go with the "already happened so it's not even news" theory regarding iPhone gaming above.

Unlikely

The video game market is one of the most expensive and toughest to crack into of all global markets. Only two new companies managed to make it from scratch in more than 10 years : Sony and Microsoft, each of them gambling huge amounts of money over many years. Apple certainly "could" theoretically make it, it has the talent and the cash, but as a business decision it would not make sense for a company that is mostly known for breaking changes and creating whole new markets. As for the "mobile" focus, doesn't make any difference : that field is crowded already, by Nintendo and Sony no less.

That'll work.. COMPLETELY

iConsole: I'm an iConsole
Xbox 360: And I'm an Xbox 360
iConsole: Hey Xbox 360, what's wrong?
Xbox 360: Oh the red ring of death, looks like I have to be replaced
iConsole: That's too bad Xbox 360, you know the iConsole doesn't have that problem
Xbox 360: Yeah, you also don't have any games, plus you cost more than the PS3
iConsole: That may be so, but people appreciate a console that just works, plus no red ring of death
Xbox 360: Yes well despite that we still managed to beat the PS3. I'd like to know what your plan is?
iConsole: Well, while you're off getting replaced people can do fun things like make photobooks and watch movies from itunes
Xbox 360: Fair enough I suppose. I think I'll go play Wii on my week off.

Re:iPippin?

GM tried the electric car once before, it failed, and they're doing it again. It's because the Gaming industry is one that hasn't been affected by a potential recession, it continues to expand in revenue and profitability. It's because games (much like electric cars) are what consumers want. Go where the market lies, don't be afraid of past failures, or you'll be doomed to irrelevance.

Re:iPippin?

Maybe because it's 10+ years later and both Apple and the gaming industry have changed?

Because they have an already successful base

Because this time, they are not trying to break into a market. They are already in a market, with a very popular device (iPhone/Touch), that has decent power and 3D capabilities along with some really good control systems (accelerometers/multitouch).

Anyone who saw the demo of Monkeyball running on the iPhone from the launch of the SDK, is crazy to think that a whole lot of cool games are not forthcoming.

Furthermore, gaming on the iPhone has the same kind of hook that Wii gaming does - it's going to be kind of unique. Exactly because there's really nothing like a D-Pad on the system games are going to have to figure out what games work best with controls using multi-touch and the accelerometers. Being unqiue is also helpful in that games for the syste,m will seem different than what people are used to, even from the DS which already has a touchscreen.

Re:iPippin?

They'd almost be better off making a console...

Apple systems already share some properties with gaming consoles, namely the harware homogeny of Apple systems.

While to me an annoyance, this standardization might actually work in Apple's favor when trying to woo game makers, as it could act to simplify development.

Re:iPippin?

no the reason there are no games for OSX is because developers are lazy and MSFT has everyone coding for directX, instead of OpenGL.

It is not lazy developers but rather market realities that limit gaming on Apple platforms. First, Microsoft invested in DirectX, even though it lost money as a division for years, specifically to attract game developers to their platform whereas Apple made no such special effort to attract third party game developers. Second, OpenGL, has not received the same amount of usability enhancements (making the libraries easier to work with and supporting other game features like sound and exotic input devices) and promotion that DirectX has. There are other reasons too, but the end result of all of this is that it is cheaper to develop a game for Windows than it is for Mac AND there are more potential customers (i.e. gamers) on the Windows platform than the Mac. Why would a game developer want to spend MORE to create his game and then be forced to sell it into a smaller market? It is tough enough to make money in game development without having to worry about crap like that.

Why do you think doom came out on the mac at the same time as on Windows, with a linux client a few weeks later?

Because John Carmack is one of the rare game developers who is wealthy enough due to his previous and ongoing successes (and being first and best into a massively successful niche...the first-person shooter) to own and run his own company which means that he calls all of the shots. Obviously Mr. Carmack enjoys proving the technical superiority of his code and games by running them on many platforms, even if those platforms don't earn a lot of extra revenue, but most game developers don't have these luxuries.

As for Adobe, Microsoft, and backwards compatibility, there are always trade-offs to be made with regard to supporting existing customers and ditching the old in favor of the new. These include not just technical issues, but money issues too. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback previous corporate decisions when one has the benefit of hindsight, but for those of us who are not prescient we make the best choices (or what we believe are the best choices) we can with the information that we have in the time available.

Re:iPippin?

I hope you (and everyone else offering suggestions on this thread) is joking. A "pippin" is a type apple [wikipedia.org], as in the fruit.

Of course, that may just be an extraordinary coincidence.

Re:iPippin?

Just anecdotal evidence, but I certainly see more than 4/100 laptops being Apple laptops when I'm out and about. And I believe that laptops are a significant number of sales for computers today.

And as Douglas Adams said:

"The Macintosh may only have 10% of the market, but it is clearly the top 10%." (Douglas Adams)"

Re:iPippin?

Yes, Vista is a flop. You can't just compare sales numbers for a product from one company and a product from another. You have to consider the sales of products that came before it. Considering Vista in comparison to XP, yes, it is a flop. When you have OEMs trying to figure out how to continue to sell the old product on their machines because people don't want your new product, then yes, it is a flop. At least Apple manages to make every OS release sell decently in comparison to their last one.

Re:iPippin?

"If it wasn't for the iPod they would have been edged out by now."

Which computer company has the strongest 1st quarter PC sales? you know the post Christmas, not yet tax refund season when people are swimming in Christmas debt?

Apple computer, they are usually within 1 million units or so of their 4th quarter (the strongest quarter for any PC maker) numbers in the 1st quarter... what does that spell to me or to you or to anyone else?

There are people who because they couldn't get an apple computer for Christmas tucked that money away and bought it in the 1st quarter. There are enough of these people who couldn't get it in Christmas, that the 1st quarter sales for apple are insanely high.

So what if anything does the I pod having 75% of the mp3 player market have anything to do with the massive massive popular demand for new apple products since Steve Jobs took back control of apple?

basically, nothing. if the apple computers weren't so popular they'd have abysmal 1st quarters just like everyone else in the PC sector. But they Don't.

Keep in mind that a significant percentage of 'total' annual computer sales are purchased by businesses, almost none of which buy apple, because they're looking for the most stripped down and cheapest PCs they can deploy for their companies employees. Apple has the strongest consumer market out there as demonstrated by how many apple purchasers buy in the 1st quarter because they simply couldn't buy what they wanted in the 4th quarter.

Doing good when all your competitors are doing bad is a strong sign of having a good consumer brand. Ipods definitely affect apples bottom line though, and they definitely saw the company through some lean years, but they have nothing to do with apple's 1st quarter PC sales.

Re:I'm definitely not knowledgeable with Mac, but.

Unless you're talking about hunt the wumpus or curses-based tetris, it doesn't do jack shit for Linux.

Re:I'm definitely not knowledgeable with Mac, but.

Mac applications are written in C and/or Objective-C, using the Cocoa or Carbon libraries to provide an interface to the user (and to the underlying OS). Games specifically are usually written using OpenGL with (optionally) a mix of other platform-specific functionality. Accessing the user (via HID), the graphics card (via OpenGL, CoreGraphics, CoreAnimation, etc), and the sound hardware (via CoreAudio) is all platform-specific.

Most of a specific chunk of code written for a Windows game will (most likely) be relatively portable already (with the possible exception of non-standard types). The bits that need to be rewritten to work on OS X are the same bits that would need to be rewritten to work on Linux. Porting to OS X gains Linux almost nothing.

Re:I'm definitely not knowledgeable with Mac, but.

Apple uses a modified version of gcc, but gcc has supported objective C since the NextStep days. GNUStep provides an OpenStep implementation.

Doesn't get much more mainstream than Spore

Unless they develop games for all mobile devices (highly impractical) or get mainstream games to run on their mobile hardware (not sure on the feasibility of this)

I agree there's no way they are going to have a platform for game development for all platforms. Whay would they? Apple wants to sell Apple platforms.

But Apple is pushing in a very big way for mainstream names to come to the platform. We've already seen demos from Nintendo and from EA, in particular a Spore demonstration. Now those were proof of concepts but it's pretty obvious both parties are interested in extending those relationships into real working games.

Games on the iPhone will be different due to how control schemes have to be altered. But we'll see names from many big players, and games from big franchises.

This may strike people as another nGague, but this time Apple is still focused on the core reasons for owning a device - and also making is useful for gaming, which is I think the right mix for a portable device that is not only a game system. I think it will be more successful than other non-gaming mobile platforms, because it has better support for graphics and control and a really good display for gaming.

Re:Graphics Cards

The lowest-end iMac comes with a Radeon HD 2400XT. The high-end iMac has a GeForce 8800. The MacBook Pros have Geforce 8600/8800s. You can get a geforce 8800 on a Mac Pro.

Mac Minis and Macbooks aren't targeted in any way toward anyone who's interested in gaming.

Unless you're uber-l337, modern Macs are just fine in the graphics department.

Re:Graphics Cards

Mac Minis and Macbooks aren't targeted in any way toward anyone who's interested in gaming.

I disagree. They are both targeted at the mainstream PC gaming crowd. You know, the ones who have made the Sims 2 the best selling game for 2007. Mainstream game developers target midrange systems from two years ago. Macs fit right in. It is a pretty similar casual gaming market as the Wii.

Mac minis and Macbooks aren't targeted at the niche, extreme gaming market where people need high end graphics cards costing significant cash. The problem is one of perception, because so many geeks and people on Slashdot are in this category, they assume it is the mainstream market and don't bother to actually see what is selling.

Re:Graphics Cards

Ok, I'm 99% sure you're a blatant troll, but to give you the benefit of doubt..

There's something terribly wrong with your computer. I could crawl along in warcraft with my old Geforce2 on an AthlonXP. Very, very slow, and very low quality, but it could run. WoW ran fine on my powerbook 1.25ghz g4.

What's the worst GPU that comes with a quadcore? The ATI 2600? With quadcore, 2gb ram (I don't think you can get mac pro with less?), and a HD2600, you should be fine. Probably not max graphics nor max resolution, and I would guess you would dip into the 20s of fps at times if you're pushing your graphical settings, but very playable.

If you paid the approximately $100 extra bucks to get a Geforce 8800, you should be rolling along at just about any resolution and maxed out graphics.

Apple offers plenty of good CPUs.