The iPhone 4 is indeed a great phone, and Shawn Blanc summarizes how he uses the phone quite nicely over at his blog. In contrast, here’s our take.

Unlike Shawn, we were a gadget-junky for phones for much longer. We started on the original Sprint cell phone back when they only had a single model, then moved to a much smaller model before switching from Sprint to T-Mobile. On our new provider, we picked up a Sony Ericsson T610, which we kept for quite awhile before getting a Sidekick 3. Our last phone on T-Mobile was the original iPhone, which we used until the 3GS was released, prompting our move to AT&T. After the release of the iPhone 4, we upgraded again. Since at least 2004, we’ve also carried a Nextel and a several models of Blackberry phones for work, so we’re certainly well acquainted with what’s out there.¹

We’ll echo Shawn’s comment about the iPhone 4 being our best phone to date. To be fair, it’s not the phone we used the most², or even the smartphone we used the most.³ But it’s the most feature-rich phone, and not just on paper. That is to say, it has the most features that we use:

• We also carry the iPhone 4 case-free for the most part. Typically, we slide it into a microcloth baggy, but we stopped using Apple’s bumper awhile ago. We dropped the phone a couple times, and there’s a small dent in one order, but otherwise the phone has proven its durability. Cases and bumpers really take away from the phone’s aesthetics, and the size is too perfect to alter with a clunky enclosure. By far, this is the most beautiful mobile device has ever shipped, and if the renderings of the iPhone 5 out there are accurate, we think the iPhone 4 will hold onto this title for another year.

• We disagree that the battery life is great. Maybe for stand-by use, but not if you’re actively using the phone. That’s not to say that the iPhone 4′s battery is worse than the competition, because we don’t believe that’s true but merely that the state of batteries in the modern mobile space simply isn’t that great. When we’re using the internet, or the GPS, for a couple hours, the battery life really takes a hit, so on days we’re traveling that the phone gets real use, it’s dead before the day ends. Thank god for car chargers. But Shawn is correct in saying that on a typical day, the iPhone doesn’t need a charge until we hit the sack,

• The camera is indeed great. It’s the only one we typically use, and we’re more likely to ignore our more expensive Lumix when we travel just because of how easy it is to snap pictures with the iPhone. Plus, we love our novelty photo apps like Hipstamatic. The iPhone camera is the perfect compromise of portability and quality, and if the iPhone 5′s camera is another major improvement, then that alone practically justifies an upgrade. Thanks in part to the flash, the iPhone 4 is the first phone that we religiously use as a camera. Before this, we didn’t bother much with phone cameras on account of the resulting picture quality.

• The retina display is indeed awesome. We notice it more often when we have a few minutes to spare somewhere and load up iBooks. Compared to reading on the iPad, the iPhone 4 reading experience is simply beautiful. We were so-so on the idea of upgrading our iPad 2 if the only major improvement was a retina display, but now we’re not so sure.

Will we upgrade to the iPhone 5? If money were no object, then certainly yes. But better camera aside, we’re not so sure just yet, because as great as the iPhone 4 is, a chunk of our iOS use has been taken up by the iPad, so whereas pre-iPad the iPhone received an enormous amount of use, a lot of the stuff we used our iPhone for in the past is no longer a function of our phone.

Similar Posts:

• Why we probably won’t get an iPad 2. – We say “probably” because if Target doesn’t have a line at 17:00 today, we may be tempted to stop in…
• AT&T screwed up our iPhone upgrade eligibility. – While we may not think that the 4G iPhone is an enormous upgrade, it’s all about the cameras, and th…
• Retina graphics and file-sizes. – Retina-optimized graphics are awesome, we all pretty much agree. But there comes a trade-off with su…

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:

• ]\ – 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…

That iOS games are threatening the traditional mobile gaming market is no longer a surprise. Today, TiPb declared that iPhone games may very well be the platform’s “killer app.” And maybe there’s some truth to this, but let’s be honest: iOS games won’t stand ground with console giants for a couple simple reasons.

The hardware: it’s fragmented.

As much as we like to dismiss the Android platform realized (versus the platform in theory) because of how fragmented the operating system is, all mobile devices in this market are inherently fragmented on the hardware side. That’s because the big push is to drop a new, upgraded model into consumer’s hands every year, and that doesn’t work well for mobile gaming devices.

Consider that Nintendo’s Game Boy was on the market for 10 years before the Game Boy Color was released. It would be another three years before the Game Boy Advance, and three more before the Nintendo DS. When the Nintendo 3DS hits shelves, the DS will have been around for six years.

The other major mobile offering, Sony’s PSP, was released in 2004, and the PSP2 isn’t scheduled for release until Q4 2011 at the earliest. So despite minor hardware improvements, the platform itself will have been around for seven years.

Now look at iOS devices. Come next summer, we’ll be on the fifth-generation iPhone, with each year seeing speed improvements. It’s one thing for Apple to stop supporting the 2G iPhone three years after its release, but we’ve also seen Apple drop iOS features in the iPhone 3G a mere two years after its release. There are even games in the AppStore that recommend an iPhone 4 for maximizing one’s gaming experience.

In this respect, Apple’s iOS devices are more like PCs in the gaming front, with newer games making use of better and newer hardware. The console market, in the meantime, is all about maximizing the capabilities of older hardware, such that newer hardware could be pushed off for years to come. The mobile space, as much as we want to compare it to consoles, is really only a console in terms of usability, not hardware stability over time.

Granted, things may shift just as they have for the PC market, in which hardware growth has slowed tremendously. If Apple is really making more money long-term on the AppStore and iTunes than they are on hardware improvements, then they could afford not to refresh their hardware every year. But that means Android phones, and devices from other competitors, would similarly need to slow down their hardware rat-race.

The storage: it’s lacking.

Still related to hardware, iOS device storage isn’t great. For most apps, or even multimedia in general, the current storage offerings are sufficient. But when the typical FPS comes in at several GB, iOS users will be expected to have 4+ GB of storage space per blockbuster title, and that means space quickly begins to come at a premium unless users decide to only keep one or two games on their devices at a time.

That’s why games like the revered Infinity Blade and Rage 3D are on rails. Not giving players the ability to roam around freely means developers can put less “stuff” in each title, and that means less textures, levels, animations, et al. And sadly, that sucks, because it means that while the hardware can otherwise support pretty cutting edge graphics, the lack of storage is keeping the mobile gaming market from pushing ahead. If storage weren’t an issue, then we daresay that iOS gaming could challenge any current-gen console, even if the graphics aren’t quite up to snuff (see: Wii).

One interesting outcome of this limitation is that iOS may become the de facto standard for rail-based gaming. Perhaps for non-technical reasons, console-based RPGs became a genre very different from PC RPGs, and a similar genre-generating phenomenon may be forming around iOS right now.

The control scheme: it’s… different.

Touch-based gaming is great for a variety of titles, but it’s not always ideal compared to the haptic feedback one gets from a physical interface. While a degree of control-scheme complexity is possible with iOS, one has to wonder where the limits are. An MMO like World of Warcraft (WoW), for example, would be nigh impossible to emulate on the iPhone control-wise. And that means there will be major concessions in terms of genres of games that iOS will sport. Yes, there may still be hardcore games on iOS, but the platform is clearly better at fostering more casual games with less input requirements.

What can be done?

One of the simplest things developers can do is not push cutting edge graphics, so as not to limit their games to customers who have devices more than a year or two old. Look at WoW, a game released in 2004 that, even then, didn’t push the limits of cutting edge hardware, which can arguably be considered a major boon to its success. (Blizzard has done similar with its previous games, like Diablo 2.) This is in stark contrast to MMOs like Everquest 2 who were more graphics-intensive, thereby not selling as many titles to customers with older hardware.

Games like Minecraft are further examples of unique, expansive titles working well despite not having great graphics. (Intentionally retro stylings are hot right now, bdesides.) And really, while eye-candy is nice to impress, an Infinity Blade-like game with free-roaming controls is arguably more attractive with graphics not as sharp, than the game in its current iteration, which is almost more a proof-of-concept than anything else.

Yes, we know that recent iOS devices have the hardware capable to make audiences gawk at the graphics potential of iOS games, but maybe that’s not where developers should be focusing their efforts for now. Whether rail-based games are fun is not the issue: let’s not pigeon-hole games on iOS to such rigid confinements, even if such rigid confinements make for better eye candy.

Similar Posts:

• How Nintendo will go the way of SEGA. – Since 2007′s release of the iPhone, Nintendo has adamantly opposed the device in favor of its own mo…
• ]\ – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …
• Retina graphics and file-sizes. – Retina-optimized graphics are awesome, we all pretty much agree. But there comes a trade-off with su…

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…
• Another generation battles. – In the early days of console gaming, one’s choices were pretty limited. When ATARI wasn’t the main p…

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

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 …
• 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…
• A Steambox makes no sense. – Two weeks ago, rumours were running wild that Valve would jump into the console fray. The rumours we…

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…
• Dispute the value, not the price. – A recent Gizmodo post caught our eye, in which Adam Frucci attempts to draw comparisons between the …
• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…

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…

The PSP Giga-pack bundle, the main selling point of which is the 1GB memory card, is the premiere PSP bundle for gamers on the go. However, a 1GB memory card is not the greatest of solutions if one intends to travel with lots of homebrew content, or, more accurately, if one intends to travel with lots of music, movie, or game backup files.

As a child, for long car trips or the occasional airplane ride, I’d regularly travel with my notebook-sized Gameboy tote, which had enough room for the Gameboy, the enormous AC adapter/backup battery, and an assortment of eight or so cartridge games. This setup was pretty efficient at the time, but with the size of cartridges and their respective plastic containers, toting around a too much equipment, which constantly had to be juggled, could get rather annoying.

While games these days tend to come in smaller packages, there’s something to be said about “ripping” one’s games and storing them all on one device, such that one needn’t juggle game discs/cartridges. That’s partially the glory of the PSP homebrew “hack”, since one can backup their games to a memory stick. Unfortunately, with the size of PSP games, even the Giga-pack fails to deliver, as a 1GB memory stick won’t hold more than two games.

A recently advertised solution is the PSP Bank, a hard-drive that can store all of one’s gaming library, music, movies, and other applications. The PSP Bank does this without the need for a computer, such that one can browse files to copy over to the PSP’s memory card from the PSP Bank’s visual interface. The device need only be attached to the PSP while files are copied to or from the PSP.

While the PSP Bank isn’t widely available yet, its sale overseas isn’t discouraging in the Western world, because while the PSP Bank touts features that many PSP gamers may find new, the technology isn’t. Apacer, for example, offers drives with “On the Go” technology, which allows precisely the functionality of the PSP Bank.

While drives like these are solid buys for those who want to keep their PSP files close at hand when traveling, I’ll stick to traveling with my laptop, which lets me swap files with easy, and is always with me when I’m far away from home. For those who don’t have this luxury though, don’t bother waiting for the PSP Bank to hit Western shores, as your nearest computer retailer likely has a similar device already in stock.

Similar Posts:

• Gaming on the go. – I haven’t been paying too much attention to the last generation of portable handhelds, and I’m fairl…
• Silenced hard drives. – A couple years ago, I remembered hearing about a device intended for computer standardization, which…
• The iPad is the volkscomputer. – We love this quote by Ed Finkler, which we spied over at Daring Fireball: When folks need an elevato…