Why Apple Needs to Re-think Disallowing Game Controller Requirement on Apple TV

The new Apple TV.

It's actually a really great set top box. It's probably the best one on the market, honestly. Putting an Apple powered App Store onto a streaming box was definitely a long time coming, and I'm so glad that it happened.

What's great about apps? Well, you know, apps.
No, seriously, developers being able to put their streaming services onto Apple TV without being blessed by Apple, or working out special deals, or sacrificing their first born children like they had to do before is great.

Also games - games are really great on Apple TV. In the week and a half that I've had it, I've played more than my fair share of Crossy Road, Asphalt 8, Oceanhorn, Xenowork, Galaxy on Fire, Breakneck and other games. They're excellent (you should definitely check them all out), and I want more. Game controllers, as well as the Siri remote work really well, and there's something about games being on my TV that makes them feel more serious - more real.

Games were a huge part of the Apple TV launch spiel. And they have a brilliant future. Taking mobile, casual games more seriously is a huge market that everyone has been trying to tap for a while now. Remember Ouya?

There's only one problem, though: there are games that I dreamed about playing since the rumors of an App Store on Apple TV started going around. Games like N.O.V.A, Dead Trigger, Modern Combat, Shadowgun, Lego Star Wars, Midnight Star, FIFA, Afterpulse, Minecraft, and others are excellent on iOS and would be amazing on a big screen with a controller.

Unfortunately, this is not currently possible, even though I'm sure the developers are interested. Apple requires that all apps on the Apple TV App Store be able to work with just the Siri remote. Apps can utilize game controllers, which is a really good choice, but they cannot require (or essentially require through nerfing usability without) a controller.

What this ends up meaning is that apps with more complicated control schemes, such as first person games, shooters, and 3D world based games are simply not possible. This is really unfortunate, because it means that great games on iOS that belong on the TV cannot be on Apple TV.

This would be one thing if nobody else was doing third party games on set top boxes, but Android TV is doing just that. They happen to have Modern Combat 4 in particular featured in their TV store. Apple TV is the best media streamer (unless you are 100% YouTube + Google Play or all Amazon streaming [but now that's Google and Amazon's fault, not Apple's]) but it can't be called the best mobile game on TV box on the market right now.

Yes, I understand that this adds complications to the App Store, and users are generally bad at complications. However, I still think this is something that could be dealt with for the better gaming end. Also, Apple could either pop up warnings before you purchase a game requiring a controller, or could only display controller games if you've connected a controller to the TV before.

Am I the only one bothered by this? Let me know what you think in the comments. And if any of you have connections at Apple, please send this feedback their way.

Update: Checking out Apple's TV App Store again reveals that Guitar Hero Live is actually able to require a "bluetooth accessory," which is of course their guitar controller. This can be shown is this poorly shot photo of my TV because I don't have a USB-C cable to use to take a screenshot. 

So, apparently, at least if you are a certain developer, or perhaps only if your controller is not a normal gamepad, you can require it for use of the app. But officially policy is still to not allow MFi controllers to be required to play a game. Hopefully this requirement gets lifted.

Ooo-yah? What's that? How and why the kickstarter hot-shot needs to reach out to non-geeks.

Ooo-yah? What’s that?

Just threw this post up onto Medium after seeing that Target now carries the Ouya console. Let me know what you think in the comments.

Microsoft Dis-Kinects: thoughts on Microsoft’s recent console changes

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/kinect_josh.jpg

MG Siegler writes on tumblr in reaction to this article from wired.com:

“Chris Kohler on the news that Microsoft will soon begin selling a $399 version of the Xbox One without the Kinect:”

‘Price is the problem, as others have learned recently. Getting Xbox One’s price in line with PlayStation 4′s was paramount, and matching Sony in terms of online video streaming features was as well since that is also an extra cost associated with Xbox ownership. Microsoft having to suck it up again and roll back a feature to get the price down illustrates that this was really its only feasible move. (Getting rid of an unpopular peripheral has got to hurt a lot less than Sony having to ditch backward compatibility to get PlayStation 3′s price to a palatable level.)’

“I’m not sold that price is the only problem here. As I’ve said from the outset, this latest generation of consoles sound like mediocre upgrades at best. They’re not Wii U-level disasters, but they’re just too “meh” to compete in a world that is increasingly mobile.”

“Further, I think Microsoft just created a quagmire for developers who were told time and time again that all Xbox One’s would ship with the Kinect. With the change, who in their right mind would create a game that takes full advantage of the device? And that, in turn, will ensure the device itself is not a success.”

I think there’s definitely something to say for making this “Xbox S” (see what I did there?) upgrade more palatable to previous console owners by making the buy-in price less steep, but I’m not sure how much of this price drop has to do with mobile gaming.

Honestly, the people that will buy a console or are thinking about it want to do so because of “hardcore” games like Titanfall, which mobile just isn’t capable of yet. Will decreasing the cost attract some mobile gamers? Probably. But I don’t see that as the goal. I see the reason being that Microsoft has realized that non-gamers are probably skipping this generation of consoles, and thus they are trying to compete with Sony’s more gaming focused machine.

As for dropping the Xbox live requirement for use of Netflix and other video apps, I see this as Microsoft actually trying to live up to its ideal of being your entertainment center, not just your gaming console. Especially in 2014, I’m not going to buy a really expensive box that I then have to pay $60 a month to use a movie streaming service I already pay for. That’s absurd. But, I may buy this box if it’s a free way to access the services I pay for and also allows me to play games.