Gabe Newell: Apple Could "Redefine" Consoles

[Treblaine]

Its not a myth apple even outright admitted that that was an issue.

But it's so adorable to watch people pretend it didn't happen even after that was admitted by apple.

Reminds me of that stoning scene from Life of Brian:

"HE said it again! There he admitted it!"
"but there's nothing wrong with saying Jehova"
"Look, you're only making things worse!"

Apple admitted they had the same issue that EVERY OTHER PHONE HAS, yet the take away message is apparently "Apple 'admits' they have exceptionally bad problem".

 

[adamtm]

Tablets in the 90s are so different conceptually from the tablets of today they almost desere a different name. For one the design brief back then allowed them to be uncomfortably heavy (up to three kilos) basically a laptop except the screen bolted straight on the front. They were never successful as it KILLED you trying to hold this thing for any useful length of time and were generally limited to a stylus interface. It was shit, but everyone liked the idea of a nice flat computing device... they just thought laptop tech was the only path to go.

We all knew what we wanted, Star Trek TNG in the 1980's knew with things like this:

They wanted a thin little touch screen interface minimalist kind of device. But the laptop-sandwich route was going nowhere fast.

This new "generation" of tablets have come from the other direction, instead of trying to make computers even smaller and more power efficient (kinda futile) it went from the other direction of making phones bigger and more powerful. This worked, and the iPad 2 is just 1.3lbs, or 600 grams yet has 10 hours battery life while still great capability in real world applications, like how pretty does Infinity Blade look.

So what you are saying, is that tablets existed since the 90s and that they became sexy now.

 

[Treblaine]

Tablets in the 90s are so different conceptually from the tablets of today they almost deserve a different name. For one the design brief back then allowed them to be uncomfortably heavy (up to three kilos) basically a laptop except the screen bolted straight on the front. They were never successful as it KILLED you trying to hold this thing for any useful length of time and were generally limited to a stylus interface. It was shit, but everyone liked the idea of a nice flat computing device... they just thought laptop tech was the only path to go.

We all knew what we wanted, Star Trek TNG in the 1980's knew with things like this:

They wanted a thin little touch screen interface minimalist kind of device. But the laptop-sandwich route was going nowhere fast.

This new "generation" of tablets have come from the other direction, instead of trying to make computers even smaller and more power efficient (kinda futile) it went from the other direction of making phones bigger and more powerful. This worked, and the iPad 2 is just 1.3lbs, or 600 grams yet has 10 hours battery life while still great capability in real world applications, like how pretty does Infinity Blade look.

So what you are saying, is that tablets existed since the 90s and that they became sexy now.

Don't know what you mean by sexy in the broad context you use, but CONCEPTUALLY tablets were desired since the 1980's even. In the 90's and early 2000's they were there but the products were not sexy as they failed to realise how much the concept failed as:
-it was so heavy (as heavy as a soldier's rifle) you couldn't hold it unsupported
-the battery was so poor you had to keep it plugged in usually (not really portable then)
-the interface was too much of an adaptation of Mouse + keyboard interface and suffered for it

Part of what defines a Tablet is how everything else serves its maximum portability design intentions. It must be light, it must last-long on battery and the interface must work JUST with touchscreen or it defeats the purpose of being a tablet. And it was a paradigm shift in design approach that was pivotal as it made Tablets PRACTICAL. Key is it realised that they were "computers" but they were NOT computers in the same sense of a PC/Desktop/Mac.

And THIS is why I admire Apple so much, they are able to nail this design when Microsoft and so many others stumbled around clueless for so many years without a clue. They are able to think outside the box and get the technology work for their design goals not the inverse. And that is why I think it would be amazing if Apple got into the home-console gaming business, there is no guarantee that they will, but if they do I guarantee they'll do something that will make you go "why didn't everyone always do it that way!?".

 

[Fusioncode9]

Gabe Newell really seems to be sucking up to everyone lately, Sony, EA, and now Apple.

 

[Something Amyss]

Apple admitted they had the same issue that EVERY OTHER PHONE HAS, yet the take away message is apparently "Apple 'admits' they have exceptionally bad problem".

Of course, that's false, so take away from it what you will.

Seriously, don't play damage control unless you're actually Apple PR. Tech sites were all over this. I'm also yet to see any smart phone that need a case to stop signal loss when held in a "normal" fashion.

But I suppose if you want to believe PR, even PR that lies, I can't strictly stop you.

 

[Treblaine]

Apple admitted they had the same issue that EVERY OTHER PHONE HAS, yet the take away message is apparently "Apple 'admits' they have exceptionally bad problem".

Of course, that's false, so take away from it what you will.

Seriously, don't play damage control unless you're actually Apple PR. Tech sites were all over this. I'm also yet to see any smart phone that need a case to stop signal loss when held in a "normal" fashion.

But I suppose if you want to believe PR, even PR that lies, I can't strictly stop you.

Yeah, all over the "tech sites" full of nothing a load of dime-a-dozen pundits getting caught up in the hype talking technically illiterate tosh.

Why can't they just man up and say "iPhone is good, but not £940/$1300-per-contract good". Enough of these weasel attacks over the antenna, that's just a cowardly way to say "I can't afford the best tech, so I'll follow any vague story that bashes it".

A lie repeated often enough doesn't make it true. The truth of the matter is the "antennagate" is blown ridiculously out of proportion, iPhone does NOT have its signal strength significantly affected by how you would normally hold it. I won't tolerate such technically illiterate nonsense be spread by ANYONE about ANYTHING. If it's iPhone today, it's ANY device tomorrow.

See, people get the crazy idea that if they say things on forums and nobody challenges them then they must me right, that's conformational bias for you. That's what I see all over the media circus. I don't own an iPhone (too expensive) but I see what people are doing, I see how they can use the same fallacious logic against anything they don't like because it got too much attention and adoration.

"I'm also yet to see any smart phone that need a case to stop signal loss when held in a "normal" fashion."

Me neither... and I've seen the iPhone.

 

[brainslurper]

And episode 3 was going to come out in 2007.

HL2: Episode 2 came out in October 2007.

Thing is Gaben said a "Trilogy that will conclude by Christmas 2007"

Erm, trilogy is three games, right:

(1) Half Life 2
(2) HL2: Episode 1
(3) HL2: Episode 2

By the end of episode 2 everything is all wrapped up for the most part with the entire plot line around City 17 completely finished they are now going to a completely new place on a different line of inquiry. It is the beginning of a new sequence of events.

I'm not so champing for another Half Life episode because I feel the 2 we had did it all.

I expect Half Life 3 to debut the successor to the Source Engine and be as different as HL2 was from HL1.

In what way did episode 2 tie anything up? In the last 10 minutes it opened more mysteries about gman then half life 2 and episode 1 combined. Valve has already stated that they are going to continue upgrading the existing source engine rather then making a new one. Portal 2 looked about as good as I can imagine any game to. While it would be easier for them working on a new engine (Do some research on how the falling apart storage chamber was done in the beginning of portal 2) as long as they are fine with going through that, I see no reason for them to make a new engine.

 

[Something Amyss]

"I'm also yet to see any smart phone that need a case to stop signal loss when held in a "normal" fashion."

Me neither... and I've seen the iPhone.

Whoops, misread.

The problem being that your claims belie even Apple's response. Again, pretending it isn't true doesn't change much. There's a reason that one of the "fixes" was to give out cases free.

Oh wait, that's probably reality conspiring against you or something. WHY OH WHY MUST APPLE AND THE NEWS AND JUST ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S USED AN IPHONE LIE TO MAKE YOU LOOK BAD?

It's a conspiracy, dude.

 

[Something Amyss]

Crap, forgot to add this....

A lie repeated often enough doesn't make it true.

So then why are you repeating them?

 

[Treblaine]

And episode 3 was going to come out in 2007.

HL2: Episode 2 came out in October 2007.

Thing is Gaben said a "Trilogy that will conclude by Christmas 2007"

Erm, trilogy is three games, right:

(1) Half Life 2
(2) HL2: Episode 1
(3) HL2: Episode 2

By the end of episode 2 everything is all wrapped up for the most part with the entire plot line around City 17 completely finished they are now going to a completely new place on a different line of inquiry. It is the beginning of a new sequence of events.

I'm not so champing for another Half Life episode because I feel the 2 we had did it all.

I expect Half Life 3 to debut the successor to the Source Engine and be as different as HL2 was from HL1.

In what way did episode 2 tie anything up? In the last 10 minutes it opened more mysteries about gman then half life 2 and episode 1 combined. Valve has already stated that they are going to continue upgrading the existing source engine rather then making a new one. Portal 2 looked about as good as I can imagine any game to. While it would be easier for them working on a new engine (Do some research on how the falling apart storage chamber was done in the beginning of portal 2) as long as they are fine with going through that, I see no reason for them to make a new engine.

Erm, if Valve have any sense then they will NEVER tell us who the G-man really is. Maybe hint at an answer, but I think we should learn from Darth-Vader/Anikin-Skywalker for the Star Wars prequels that sometimes it's best to leave you Big Bad as mysterious as possible.

G-man's entire appeal is his mystery, pull back the curtain and I guarantee it won't be as interesting as the hinted unknown. It's like when Lost tried to answer all the questions. Wrong move, the entire appeal of The Island was how vaguely plausible yet unexplainable it all was, the explanation didn't really matter, it would have been far better them finally leaving the events wondering "but what about the Polar bear, and Walt, and The Numbers... I guess we'll never know, the important thing is we made it off there alive".

It's like the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, you DO NOT need to know what is in there, all that matters is that it is awe inspiring and described even by a hardened cockney thug as "beautiful".

Anyway, my point is the EVENTS have been all wrapped up in the City 17 area. HL2 left with the mystery of Gordon and Co surviving some sort of nuclear explosion. Ep1 left us dealing with the conclusion of the ACTUAL blast that was no ordinary explosion that had to be concluded in Ep2. After that they are heading off to a completely different location on a very different line of inquiry with Aperture science and The Borealis, there is no cliffhanger. Yes there are unanswered questions but so too with Half Life 1 and the "episodes" that went with them.

 

[Treblaine]

"I'm also yet to see any smart phone that need a case to stop signal loss when held in a "normal" fashion."

Me neither... and I've seen the iPhone.

Whoops, misread.

The problem being that your claims belie even Apple's response. Again, pretending it isn't true doesn't change much. There's a reason that one of the "fixes" was to give out cases free.

Oh wait, that's probably reality conspiring against you or something. WHY OH WHY MUST APPLE AND THE NEWS AND JUST ABOUT EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S USED AN IPHONE LIE TO MAKE YOU LOOK BAD?

It's a conspiracy, dude.

They unreasonably demand bumpers, they get bumpers to calm them down. Oh shit, "this must prove they have a shit phone".

Does not follow.

Anyway, I don't see how a bumper is such a huge problem. It's a necessity to have a bumper anyway to protect it from - get this - bumping. One moment of clumsiness could cost you $500 it's worth the bumper to protect from falls on its edge, I've lost enough phones this way (and none of them iphones). Plus you can get a sturdier grip (for camera + gaming) and less likely to slip from pockets and so on with the bumper. It's an improvement all around and a bunch of hysterical whiners managed to extort millions out of Apple chasing a transient issue.

I use concave triggers on my PS3 controller PLUS a concave cup on the thumbsticks, $4 investment for a vast improvement. It's not a problem, it's a very worthy investment... NOT NECESSARY but a little improvement for a small amount of money that is worth it to me.

Now if I was going to be a churlish dick I could say:

"*Snort* well it's the worst fucking thing in the world to have to spent even a single extra penny to improve my device in any way... oh woe is me an my unbearable First World Problems. Please, someone call the United Nations and report this evil corporation for his heinous crimes against consumers"

That's all I hear with the Antennagate whiners: First World Problems.

It's not like you have been defrauded of $500, the phone MOST CERTAINLY DOES WORK.

Thing is, even an iPhone WITH a bumper... it's still one of the best phones money can buy. Money I don't have, but still one of the best. Yet people still complain and demand Apple give them more freebies.

 

[Treblaine]

double post

 

[TheDooD]

I've always disliked Apple. I can appreciate the convenience of their devices, but their just too closed off and way overpriced. My family owns an iMac (you know, the desktop ones) and sure it's convenient, everybody but me just uses it as a portal to the internet, a place to access their email, and a calendar.

I suspect that for the price of that iMac I could have (if I was old enough and knowledgeable enough) constructed a PC many times more powerful.

With Apple's popularity, I fear that if they did release a console they might gain market dominance. And if that happened we would be saying a fearful 'hello' to thousands upon thousands of overpriced, inane little titles and fewer AAA games. The PC might also fall off as a gaming platform in favor of macs.

Basically, I think Apple gaining a monopoly of the tech industry would be FAR worse than Microsoft or Sony or what-have-you.

It'll be fucked up yet it is every possible that this could happen because Apple is easy mode. Most people that I know that have an iPhone don't really use it as a telephone. It's all about the apps and all that crap. I really don't want the future of gaming to just be shovelware of overpriced ADD flashgames.

 

[robinkom]

Won't deny the contributions and innovations in tablet/phone gaming by Apple. I'm not at all a fan of their products but I recognize a profitable market when I see it. I doubt Apple would step into the console arena, it's already pretty ruthless in there. I doubt they would commit the money and resources to compete long-term, it's a tricky thing when you're the "new kid" in the console war as companies like NEC, Sony, Microsoft, and SEGA can attest to. None of them some complete popularity immediately, some even took a couple console outings to get it right.

You have to watch your every step, one wrong investment is like stepping on a landmine.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Could be interesting, though I suspect the Apple console's only contribution would be access to music, a one-button controller and an organic design no one could possibly find sexy.

Consoles aren't about the technology, they're about accessibility. An Apple console would cost a grand and have more apps for games than actual games.