Apple Gamming System

applegeek09 · Apr 6, 2009

Im impressed on the things that apple comes out with. Now what would be awesome and im shocked that they didnt do yet, is an Apple Gaming System. I think they should replace xbox's and apple is great at visualizations so im hoping they create one and graphics should be great, i would so buy one. I was wondering if apple would ever do something like this, or what i would have to do to promote this.

ADKhikerVW · Apr 6, 2009

They did, and it was a major failure.

Khris · Apr 6, 2009

They've already got a gaming platform.......it's called the iPod Touch/iPhone.

applegeek09 · Apr 6, 2009

how was the gaming system a failure, and i dont classify iphone and ipod touch gaming systems that play on tv, like ps3

applegeek09 · Apr 6, 2009

The apple pippin? that was made in like 95, even gaming systems were new at that time and werent all that great, and/or popular, im sure if apple gave another shot today, it would be a great success

gagnerants · Apr 6, 2009

no offense but seeing how apple is unable to draw more developers for games, a console would fail again. And yeah the iPhone / iTouch is as close as we are going to get for a platform for gaming.

cwa107 · Apr 6, 2009

applegeek09 said:
Im impressed on the things that apple comes out with. Now what would be awesome and im shocked that they didnt do yet, is an Apple Gaming System.

As was said, they DID do it already - it was called the Pippin and it was a dismal failure.

I think they should replace xbox's and apple is great at visualizations so im hoping they create one and graphics should be great, i would so buy one.

Apple doesn't really design GPU architecture, they use commodity hardware and integrate it into their computer lines.

I think you're alluding to Apple's competency in UI and design in general, but that doesn't translate into what would make a killer gaming platform.

I was wondering if apple would ever do something like this, or what i would have to do to promote this.

Highly doubtful. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but at one time the XBOX was sold at a loss, and overall the platform was a money pit for Microsoft. I don't think you'll see Apple make the same mistake.

eric · Apr 6, 2009

applegeek09 said:
The apple pippin? that was made in like 95, even gaming systems were new at that time and werent all that great, and/or popular,

you're calling the original sony playstation not all that great and a failure?

i'd imagine there would be millions of people who would disagree with that statement.

baggss · Apr 6, 2009

ADKhikerVW said:
They did, and it was a major failure.

Good link but citing the Pippin as a reason that Apple should stay out of the gaming market is like citing the Newton for why Apple should have stayed out of the PDA market. Apple today is a vastly different company than the one that floated the Pippin or the Newton.

Village Idiot · Apr 6, 2009

applegeek09 said:
The apple pippin? that was made in like 95, even gaming systems were new at that time and werent all that great, and/or popular, im sure if apple gave another shot today, it would be a great success

You need to brush up on your history. NES, Genesis, Super Nintendo. Those were all hugely successful and were out pre '95, around '95, or after '95.

baggss said:
Good link but citing the Pippin as a reason that Apple should stay out of the gaming market is like citing the Newton for why Apple should have stayed out of the PDA market. Apple today is a vastly different company than the one that floated the Pippin or the Newton.

How about the citing the fact that it would take a gigantic monetary commitment to R&D a console and be able to market it to be successful? That and how much money did Sony & MS claim they were losing when selling consoles? Most of that is made up in game sales and everything else over the 6 or so years that a console is current.

Seeing as how Apple is known for gaming, they'd have a reputation to try and change as well.

That and they'd have to have an easy to program for platform that would draw developers. Why would a developer spend the time and effort creating a game for a system that's not popular?

And the biggest thing would have to be cost. Would Apple risk selling a product they're losing money on with the thought that the future popularity of the system would bring them more cash or would they charge $1000 for a gaming system that would ultimately leave them with a tiny market share and a lack of interested developers?

There would have to be a lot of lucky stars in alignment for something like that to work.

eric · Apr 6, 2009

Village Idiot said:
You need to brush up on your history. NES, Genesis, Super Nintendo. Those were all hugely successful and were out pre '95, around '95, or after '95.

Genesis and Super Nintendo were definitley on sale in 95. though they came out well before 1995, they're still great examples of why the op's statement is inacurate. even the Nintendo 64, which came out a couple years after 95, was a giant. Though since he mentioned '95 specifically, the year the playstation was first released (though i think it was dec 94 in Japan), i had to call him on that one.

Village Idiot · Apr 6, 2009

eric said:
Genesis and Super Nintendo were definitley on sale in 95. though they came out well before 1995, they're still great examples of why the op's statement is inacurate. even the Nintendo 64, which came out a couple years after 95, was a giant. Though since he mentioned '95 specifically, the year the playstation was first released (though i think it was dec 94 in Japan), i had to call him on that one.

Was just pointing out to him the popularity of video game systems before that. NES was '83 and SNES was maybe '91?

Anyways, the original Atari? That was extremely popular.

But then again, when was the OP born?

eric · Apr 6, 2009

i'd guess he's young. the only time i don't remember there being a wildly popular video game platform in my lifetime (since 1970), was druing the small period in the 80s between the slow down of the atari 2600 and the release of the NES. of course, during that time, i had an atari 5200

bobtomay · Apr 6, 2009

I had an Intellevision in the mid 80's and loved it.

I made lots of money on that platform. (Yeah, we use to gamble a little.)

Derek McNelly · Apr 6, 2009

This thread, summed up in one image:

Also, "Gamming"?

baggss · Apr 6, 2009

Village Idiot said:
How about the citing the fact that it would take a gigantic monetary commitment to R&D a console and be able to market it to be successful? That and how much money did Sony & MS claim they were losing when selling consoles? Most of that is made up in game sales and everything else over the 6 or so years that a console is current.

Seeing as how Apple is known for gaming, they'd have a reputation to try and change as well.

That and they'd have to have an easy to program for platform that would draw developers. Why would a developer spend the time and effort creating a game for a system that's not popular?

And the biggest thing would have to be cost. Would Apple risk selling a product they're losing money on with the thought that the future popularity of the system would bring them more cash or would they charge $1000 for a gaming system that would ultimately leave them with a tiny market share and a lack of interested developers?

There would have to be a lot of lucky stars in alignment for something like that to work.

You mean kind of like they had to do for the iPhone? Lots of R&D to get it out the door and a HUGE risk in penetrating an already saturated market and yet somehow they have hit upon success. Seems to me that they have a pretty good track record as of late. That doesn't mean they should do it but it also doesn't mean they shouldn't do it simply because it's "to risky".

eric · Apr 6, 2009

well, the iphone was a special case. the merging of where the ipod and cell phones were going, using a UI that would also be used for the ipod. not a stretch to add a phone to an ipod. i think the point VI was making was that it would be a distinct new line of hardware they'd need to build, not to mention getting developers on board - which would be harder for full fledged games than it is iphone apps.

it's not an impossibility for sure, but for a company that's barely linked at all with "real gaming" (not mobile gaming which is really a completely different animal) it would be a tough sell.

of course Sony did it in 95, but they had quite a bit of experience developing a platform with Nintendo that never panned out.

baggss · Apr 6, 2009

eric said:
well, the iphone was a special case. the merging of where the ipod and cell phones were going, using a UI that would also be used for the ipod. not a stretch to add a phone to an ipod. i think the point VI was making was that it would be a distinct new line of hardware they'd need to build, not to mention getting developers on board - which would be harder for full fledged games than it is iphone apps.

it's not an impossibility for sure, but for a company that's barely linked at all with "real gaming" (not mobile gaming which is really a completely different animal) it would be a tough sell.

Which pretty much describes what they had to go through to bring the iPod line out to begin with. That market was different I agree. There were MP3 players out there and they pretty much sucked but where they were financially at the time, it was a HUGE risk for them, much as it was to enter an already congested and highly contested Cell-Phone market. My point here is that Apple more than has the wherewithal to do this should they choose.

Village Idiot · Apr 6, 2009

baggss said:
Which pretty much describes what they had to go through to bring the iPod line out to begin with. That market was different I agree. There were MP3 players out there and they pretty much sucked but where they were financially at the time, it was a HUGE risk for them, much as it was to enter an already congested and highly contested Cell-Phone market. My point here is that Apple more than has the wherewithal to do this should they choose.

But the iPhone was something different. A phone where the provider doesn't really get a say over the content? And with Apple's huge backing of the iTunes store, they allowed apps that let you stay connected to the internet as long as you have service.

Sure there were a ton of phones out there, but none of them were really good. I mean, black berry had a hold on the enterprise market, but they didn't have a phone with no controls but the touch screen.

There was an over saturation of crappy phone out there. Seriously? T-mobile sidekick vs. iPhone? Even newer offerings like the google OS phone don't really pan out and even the black berry storm was pointed out as having huge lag problems and not being as integrated in general.

Apple had a clear advantage with the release of the iPhone.

Why couldn't Apple make it into the video game market? Maybe they could. I don't know if they'd last though. Microsoft already had stepping stones into the gaming industry. Windows is pretty much the only OS that all major PC video games gets released on. Apple's library of games is tiny in comparison. Windows alread had developers they could work with for exclusive content. That's what sells system. The original Xbox was an alright system. I think I only played halo and maybe two other games for it as the library and exclusives list for the PS2 was huge.

Even now, if you spend $199 on an Xbox 360, why would you spend $299 on a PS3 if you can get the exact same games on the 360? You'd have to have a clear cut advantage to make people want to go with your system.

Apple would need something innovative and they would need exclusive games. Killer apps that you would want to spend the money on the system. A system that was easy for developers to program for. Why buy an Apple gaming system if you can't get the games that every other system has? A comparable price point, or a reason to spend $XXX more than you would on Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony's platform.

There's a lot of factors. Microsoft got lucky with the launch of the "next gen" 360 coming out almost a year before PS3 and having everything fall into place for them.

Plus, MS has a lot more money than Apple. What was the cost of developing the first xbox anyways?

Ed. And right now, the two "serious" players in the market are Sony and MS. It's not like phones where if you choose a provider you can get a handset for free. It's an investment. $200-$400 systems. $60 games. $60 controllers. $100 modems. It can get expensive. I wouldn't invest money in a new system unless I new there were going to be worth the hundred of dollars.

baggss · Apr 6, 2009

Village Idiot said:
But the iPhone was something different. A phone where the provider doesn't really get a say over the content? And with Apple's huge backing of the iTunes store, they allowed apps that let you stay connected to the internet as long as you have service.

Sure there were a ton of phones out there, but none of them were really good. I mean, black berry had a hold on the enterprise market, but they didn't have a phone with no controls but the touch screen.

There was an over saturation of crappy phone out there. Seriously? T-mobile sidekick vs. iPhone? Even newer offerings like the google OS phone don't really pan out and even the black berry storm was pointed out as having huge lag problems and not being as integrated in general.

Apple had a clear advantage with the release of the iPhone.

Why couldn't Apple make it into the video game market? Maybe they could. I don't know if they'd last though. Microsoft already had stepping stones into the gaming industry. Windows is pretty much the only OS that all major PC video games gets released on. Apple's library of games is tiny in comparison. Windows alread had developers they could work with for exclusive content. That's what sells system. The original Xbox was an alright system. I think I only played halo and maybe two other games for it as the library and exclusives list for the PS2 was huge.

Even now, if you spend $199 on an Xbox 360, why would you spend $299 on a PS3 if you can get the exact same games on the 360? You'd have to have a clear cut advantage to make people want to go with your system.

Apple would need something innovative and they would need exclusive games. Killer apps that you would want to spend the money on the system. A system that was easy for developers to program for. Why buy an Apple gaming system if you can't get the games that every other system has? A comparable price point, or a reason to spend $XXX more than you would on Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony's platform.

There's a lot of factors. Microsoft got lucky with the launch of the "next gen" 360 coming out almost a year before PS3 and having everything fall into place for them.

Plus, MS has a lot more money than Apple. What was the cost of developing the first xbox anyways?

Ed. And right now, the two "serious" players in the market are Sony and MS. It's not like phones where if you choose a provider you can get a handset for free. It's an investment. $200-$400 systems. $60 games. $60 controllers. $100 modems. It can get expensive. I wouldn't invest money in a new system unless I new there were going to be worth the hundred of dollars.

I don't disagree with any of the above but consider that when it became clear that Apple intended to enter the cell phone market many of the same issues you continue to cite were used by the nay-sayers then.

Every market is different but I suspect Apple could find a way to leverage off the iPod/iPhone/iTunes/Apple TV line and find a hook to pull people in (like building iTunes into the game system along with Apple TV capability and allowing vendors to sell their games on the iTunes store for download at a reduced price or some such) just like they did with the iPhone. It's not that far out of the realm of possibility.

What if you could buy Call of Duty 5 for an Apple Gaming system for say $30 (vice $50+) and download it directly via your iTunes account to your game machine to play? Interesting angle that even MS is trying with X-Box on-line. With the iTunes store Apple already has the vehicle for sales, all they need to add is the content and box.