What's stopping iPhones and Android Phones from becoming consoles?

[mikegg]

Wireless controller --> phone --> display to TV

Connect a wireless controller to the phone. Have video out to TV. CONSOLE!

Compete directly with MS, Sony, and Nintendo. Take the game on the go when no TV. Up to 4 wireless controllers for multiplayer games. New hardware means constantly better looking games. Unlike consoles that go through 10 year cycles.

The iPhone 5 can almost display PS3-like graphics. See Infinity Blade 2 below. And it doesn't even take full advantage of the iPhone 5 power.

All Apple/Google has to do is develop a killer controller like Dual Shock 3 and the Xbox controller.

What's stopping Apple/Google from disrupting the $60 billion gaming industry even more? The only thing I could think of is storage. 16GB isn't going to cut it to store multiple good looking games. But there are other ways around that like increasing storage/sell official external gaming storage hard drives.

 

[ViRGE]

The iPhone 5 can almost display PS3-like graphics.

Respectfully, it's not even close. A6 (Swift + SGX543MP3) doesn't have the memory bandwidth, the fillrates, the texel rates, or the shading performance to catch up to a PS360. Ultimately handheld games are taking advantage of lower resolutions coupled with lots of fudging; if you had to display it on a TV it wouldn't look nearly as good, especially when it comes to getting many objects on the screen at once.

Your best point of comparison would be the PS Vita. It has a Quad-A9 + SGX543MP4, which is still more powerful than A6. Games look good, but they don't hold a candle to the PS3. For something that can push both systems you're looking at the Vita running at half the framerate, and still having to compromise on asset quality. You'd need to at least triple GPU performance to catch up.

 

[Modular]

Washed out lighting effects, low resolution, blurry grass, etc.

Looks ok on the phone, but that's about it.

 

[WelshBloke]

Washed out lighting effects, low resolution, blurry grass, etc.

Looks ok on the phone, but that's about it.

Plus phone games are designed for touch rather than controllers.

You can do this already with emulators on Android though . They work quite well as the games were designed to be played that way.

 

[sswingle]

Well they already have HDMI android sticks that go directly to the back of your TV. Load some games on that and there you go.

 

[Anubis]

Ouya is doing exactly that. while its not a phone its an android based console

 

[thecapsaicinkid]

Devices are so cheap now I think most people would rather stick an Ouya under their tv instead of having a phone with huge amounts of storage.

Cloud game saves are a must though I think.

 

[shortylickens]

I have a Logitech Revue. Trust me, Android is not ready yet.

 

[mikegg]

Washed out lighting effects, low resolution, blurry grass, etc.

Looks ok on the phone, but that's about it.

iPhone 5 has a 1136 x 640 resolution. Some PS3 games didn't even launch with HD graphics. I'm almost certain that games can look great on the iPhone 5 if they are designed from the ground up to take advantage of the hardware.

See Infinity Blade 2 for example which is designed to scale from 3GS to 5. If it was only designed for the 5 or up, it'd look fantastic on a big screen too.

 

[mikegg]

Plus phone games are designed for touch rather than controllers.

You can do this already with emulators on Android though . They work quite well as the games were designed to be played that way.

Hence, why you connect it with a controller and turn it into a console. Developers will develop with the controller in mind.

 

[mikegg]

Well they already have HDMI android sticks that go directly to the back of your TV. Load some games on that and there you go.

Not even remotely the same. I'm talking about having dedicated games designed from the ground up for superior smart phone hardware.

Samsung sold something like 30 million S3s. iPhone 5 is going to sell even more than that. You don't think developers are going to jump on a chance to develop dedicated "console" like games when the base is so large?

This will absolutely work. Apple/Google just needs to support it. In fact, I think they will in the near future. They have to.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the iPhone 5S or the iPhone 6 will launch with this concept.

 

[mikegg]

Devices are so cheap now I think most people would rather stick an Ouya under their tv instead of having a phone with huge amounts of storage.

Cloud game saves are a must though I think.

I think Ouya is a start but it's not going to be able to drive make a big dent though.

The advantage of using a phone is that everyone has a smart phone nowadays and you can bring your console anywhere at all times. And with a phone, you upgrade every 1-2 years so you get better hardware.

I hope Google buys Ouya and integrate the technology directly onto their phones.

 

[mikegg]

Respectfully, it's not even close. A6 (Swift + SGX543MP4) doesn't have the memory bandwidth, the fillrates, the texel rates, or the shading performance to catch up to a PS360. Ultimately handheld games are taking advantage of lower resolutions coupled with lots of fudging; if you had to display it on a TV it wouldn't look nearly as good, especially when it comes to getting many objects on the screen at once.

Your best point of comparison would be the PS Vita. It has a Quad-A9 + SGX543MP4, which is still more powerful than A6. Games look good, but they don't hold a candle to the PS3. For something that can push both systems you're looking at the Vita running at half the framerate, and still having to compromise on asset quality. You'd need to at least triple GPU performance to catch up.

Yea, it wouldn't look as good as the PS3 or Xbox 360. But hardware pretty much doubles every year. How do you think games will look like 2-3 years from now? They'd look damn close to PS3/Xbox 360 level in my opinion. And 5-6 years from now? 10 years - which is a console cycle...?

It's gotta start at some point.

Android phones are really lacking in the graphics department. If "console" gaming on smart phones take off, it'll force hardware makers to engineer more powerful GPUs.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

I love this idea, but sadly i dont think it will ever catch on. Everyone is talking about how the graphics are so inferior, but i think thats missing the point. In their current state, I think graphics performance is fine for the type of device this would be. Think about pitching this idea to your average moron, who has to have someone come over and hook up their blu ray dvd player for them. Now imagine that person trying to hook this up with mhl, or whatever it needs, pair controllers, etc etc. What about when your phone rings? Too much fragmentation in Android lineup to do something like this.

This is idea is what the vita *should* have been. This is also why the sega nomad was my most sought after toy when i was a kid.

I do hope someday this is a reality, I'm all for more all purpose devices. Right now my dream device would be a Windows 8 surface that has enough power to run the most demanding games at lower settings. Once that dream becomes a reality, then I'd like something even more powerful, so that i can have just one computer (Tablet mode/laptop mode/docked and hooked up to a TV/monitor mode). It would also be nice if they built in the xbox IR receiver eventually, or just made a small dongle instead of the huge one they have now. I hoping in a year or two, the first will become a reality - or close to it. Lastly I hope touch support is built in in a bunch of games to make the experience that much better when playing in tablet mode.

 

[thecapsaicinkid]

Isn't cloud gaming just going to make that all redundant though?

 

[bearxor]

Your best point of comparison would be the PS Vita. It has a Quad-A9 + SGX543MP4, which is still more powerful than A6. Games look good, but they don't hold a candle to the PS3. For something that can push both systems you're looking at the Vita running at half the framerate, and still having to compromise on asset quality. You'd need to at least triple GPU performance to catch up.

I don't disagree with you n a whole, but I believe an A6 is probably just about on par with a Vita. Granted, I'm not sure what the 543 clocks on a vita are offhand. But you're talking a dual core, highly optimized A9 core that matches something like a quad core Exynos, with a SGX543MP3. If the A6 is slower, I don't think it would be noticeable in most usage cases.

The other side of your argument is falling off the wayside as mobile games begin to target HD resolutions of 1136x640 and 1280x720 on phones. It's not 1080p, but I'm not aware of too many PS3 or X360 games that render at 1080p. Most render at 720p, with some hitting 640 and 540 and up scaling from there.

I agree it's not there YET, but it will be. Soon. But...

Isn't cloud gaming just going to make that all redundant though?

Yes. Cloud gaming is really the direction we're going anyways. I suspect in 10 years or less, the idea of owning a game console or even a computer will be foreign to most people. In 10 years, I want to have a 24" monitor, a 8" tablet and a 4" phone that essentially all run the same operating system, streamed from a cloud server in real time and optimized for viewing on whichever device I happen to be currently using. All my files will be stored in the cloud and applications are installed on the virtual front end, including games and office applications, accessible from wherever I am.

That's the future.

 

[dagamer34]

Because the problem isn't graphics, it's time spent in development. There's a reason why few games take real advantage of the GPU power inside the latest iPhone, because after spending a year in development, there's no guarantee your game will ever make back its money. And when the top selling game on iOS is Angry Nirds at 99 cents, there is no way you can fit a budget to actually make a game that would compete with consoles, even if they had the same amount of power (they do not).

 

[dagamer34]

Not even remotely the same. I'm talking about having dedicated games designed from the ground up for superior smart phone hardware.

Samsung sold something like 30 million S3s. iPhone 5 is going to sell even more than that. You don't think developers are going to jump on a chance to develop dedicated "console" like games when the base is so large?

This will absolutely work. Apple/Google just needs to support it. In fact, I think they will in the near future. They have to.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the iPhone 5S or the iPhone 6 will launch with this concept.

When customers expect 99 cent games, where are you going to get the budget to spend a year in development that actually take advantage if that hardware? Thus isn't about graphical power, but use case. Apple or Google aren't going to do it because it makes no sense.

 

[mikegg]

When customers expect 99 cent games, where are you going to get the budget to spend a year in development that actually take advantage if that hardware? Thus isn't about graphical power, but use case. Apple or Google aren't going to do it because it makes no sense.

Apple or Google doesn't set a mandatory 99 cent price. Console quality games will obviously cost more.

It's not like PS3/Xbox users are a different audience than smart phone users. Hell, I'm willing to bet that PS3/Xbox users are the first to buy the latest smart phones. So essentially, this would target many of the same customers.

 

[mikegg]

Isn't cloud gaming just going to make that all redundant though?

Doubt it. I don't think Xbox 720/PS4 are going cloud and those consoles will also have a 10 year life cycle.

But cloud gaming would only help in this case since all you need is a device to hook all your wireless controllers to - perfect for a smartphone.

 

[mikegg]

Because the problem isn't graphics, it's time spent in development. There's a reason why few games take real advantage of the GPU power inside the latest iPhone, because after spending a year in development, there's no guarantee your game will ever make back its money. And when the top selling game on iOS is Angry Nirds at 99 cents, there is no way you can fit a budget to actually make a game that would compete with consoles, even if they had the same amount of power (they do not).

Agreed. People are not going to pay $60 for a game that's has only touch control on a 4 inch screen. But add a controller and a 50 inch LED TV in the mix and the field changes dramatically.

Between the S3 and iPhone 5, there are 60 million+ units sold. You honestly don't think developers won't develop for this kind of user base? They'd at least want to port games over that require a controller to play.

 

[mikegg]

I love this idea, but sadly i dont think it will ever catch on. Everyone is talking about how the graphics are so inferior, but i think thats missing the point. In their current state, I think graphics performance is fine for the type of device this would be. Think about pitching this idea to your average moron, who has to have someone come over and hook up their blu ray dvd player for them. Now imagine that person trying to hook this up with mhl, or whatever it needs, pair controllers, etc etc. What about when your phone rings? Too much fragmentation in Android lineup to do something like this.

I think in the ideal world, you'd connect to the TV without MHL adapters. There needs to be a dedicated port out to TV because you'll want to plug your phone into the wall to power the device.

If this concept is officially supported, Apple/Google will obviously make this a very easy experience. Syncing 4 controllers would be easy. Bring your own controller.

As for getting a phone call in the middle, that's not really an issue because you can either set your phone to ignore calls while you game or it just pauses the game. No problem.

Android fragmentation is a problem but that's Google's problem - not Apple's. Besides, if Nexus supports it, most other highend phones will follow.

 

[dagamer34]

Agreed. People are not going to pay $60 for a game that's has only touch control on a 4 inch screen. But add a controller and a 50 inch LED TV in the mix and the field changes dramatically.

Between the S3 and iPhone 5, there are 60 million+ units sold. You honestly don't think developers won't develop for this kind of user base? They'd at least want to port games over that require a controller to play.

Android has millions of activations a day and yet most games debut on iOS. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that a large userbase means that you should have more sales, you cannot ignore the buying habits of the userbase. And there is absolutely no evidence that they wil support anything more than a 99 cent game at massive scale. And when a simplistic game like Angry Birds is raking in tons of cash, it makes far more sense to try and build 10 or 100 simplistic games in a hope of making a similar hit like Plants vs Zombies or Where's My Water rather than the next Call of Duty, because I don't think it matters what kind of graphics a system can produce is the economics don't exist to spend that much time on dev time in the first place.

There is no "secret" market to break into. Millions of people are not going to hook up their phones to their TV to play a game. That's what a console is for. And you are forgetting that outside of America, most phones are sold unsubsidized at $500-600 a pop, far higher than a console which can cost $200, far lower barrier to entry, and MUCH better games. Plus, there's also the tiny fact that cellphones barely charge when you push the CPU and GPU to their limits, and also wear down the battery more.

 

[mikegg]

Android has millions of activations a day and yet most games debut on iOS. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that a large userbase means that you should have more sales, you cannot ignore the buying habits of the userbase. And there is absolutely no evidence that they wil support anything more than a 99 cent game at massive scale. And when a simplistic game like Angry Birds is raking in tons of cash, it makes far more sense to try and build 10 or 100 simplistic games in a hope of making a similar hit like Plants vs Zombies or Where's My Water rather than the next Call of Duty, because I don't think it matters what kind of graphics a system can produce is the economics don't exist to spend that much time on dev time in the first place.

There is no "secret" market to break into. Millions of people are not going to hook up their phones to their TV to play a game. That's what a console is for. And you are forgetting that outside of America, most phones are sold unsubsidized at $500-600 a pop, far higher than a console which can cost $200, far lower barrier to entry, and MUCH better games. Plus, there's also the tiny fact that cellphones barely charge when you push the CPU and GPU to their limits, and also wear down the battery more.

You are correct that people expect 99 cent apps on iOS and Android. But that's nothing a good marketing campaign can't fix. It's not really a big issue.

People will pay for better games. Like I said, console owners that pay $60 for a game on the consoles will be happy to pay for a game that's 80% in quality for $20. And knowing console gamers, they will pay $50 for a port of Final Fantasy 7.

Yes, phones can cost $500-$600 unsubsidized - what's the problem here? People have to buy phones. They will buy it whether or not it has console capabilities. The console element is just bonus.

You will obviously have to charge the phone while you play so battery doesn't die in an hour. Not really an issue.

 

[mikegg]

dagamer34, don't forget that analysts expect the console market to shrink because of competition from smart phones. Some console developers are turning into mobile gaming developers anyways. What better way out than to develop FOR smart phones mimicking consoles?