Because it always happens, and it's inevitable. The first person to create a proper God game like Populous on iPad is going to sell a few million (as long as they have the marketing to get noticed). First person to create a proper XCOM game will probably do very well too. And that's before the pad has been expanded with proper controls, just using what games currently work.
It's inevitable that some will TRY to produce what most consider AAA games on tablets, but it's not inevitable that it will be successful.
Just as it's inevitable that TV makers will try to stuff more in the box to lure in sales, but that doesn't mean the investments will pay off.
Cost/benefit is a tricky thing. Rarely does it produce a miracle that shifts the way an entire population does things.
Apple doesn't need to court anyone. Developers chase the ooportunities. Why create a fancy looking FPS on PS360 or XB3+PS4 when everyone else is doing the same and providing stiff competition when the iOS audience is untapped? That's always what happens. Someone takes a chance. A couple of pioneers fail, but then someone finds a runaway success which proves the potential. Then more jump on the bandwagon and evolve the system. Always. It's what happened with IBM PCs, home computing, smart phones, etc.
Sure, but as I said, there will always be advantages in a STB.
The things that make a tablet portable are the things which keep it at a disadvantage.
That will never change.
PSP didn't launch with TV out, and its games output is 480x272. At a time when people were upgrading to large LCD panels, 480x272 looks crap. So no, PSP wasn't anything like comparable to a 720p/1080p output from a tablet. It also lacked a second stick which is essential for many core games. It also can't be played connected to the TV while you sit back in your sofa.
...
It has no TV out. It doesn't function as a tarblet/smartphone. It still doesn't support remote controller play. So no, it doesn't satisfy any of the criteria I've mentioned are what'll make tablet a suitable substitute for consoles in future. I doubt the core gamer market will have much interest in it at all, and will await more powerful smartphone with gaming additions.
Right.
So, OnLive on ipad should be killing it.
It has access to major franchises and a gamepad and wireless TV-Out capabilities.
At least in major cities with broadband.
There are no exact comparisons. The point is in every comparison where the status quo has been supported by people who believe it'll never really change or be contested, it always has been. your looking at the iPad now and drawing conclusions without considering how it'll evolve is that same shortsightedness.
I realize things change. They always do.
However,
some things do not.
Huh? You can carry a tablet around with you, surf the web, watch movies in bed, read books on, etc. It has loads of added value, hence the reason they're the among the best selling electronic devices of all time, selling way better than games consoles. Unless you believe the core gamer market is unique in not wanting a tablet, then you have to accept that they'll consider buying both. And when you consider they have finite incomes, you'll have to agree that some would be quite happy to own a gaming tablet instead of having to shell out on both.
You know what else I can do all of that on? My laptop.
You know what else I can do on my laptop that I can't on a tablet? Type faster, edit videos, autocad, illustrator, photoshop, coding (php, java, javascript, etc) 3D studio, ESRI gis apps, etc.
Oh, and BTW, I can game on it too. And not just Zombies with Plants, but real games.
Finite resources? Sure that's true of everyone. For many people, a $300 netbook does everything an ipad does, and more. That leaves $200 for a ps3 or an xbox360
Or people that are afraid of keyboards can get a kindle fire for $100 which does all of the above, but without top range hardware.
Tablets are by design consumption based devices. For that function, they don't need uber hardware and the costs associated with it (see: Kindle Fire).
Anything above that is getting into hardware which has a purpose above and beyond the list you provided ... (gaming).
And there are a lot of options there, most of them outclass the offerings available in any tablet format.
And my prediction - in 20 years consoles won't exist and tablets will be ubiquitous.
I agree, that is a possibility.
However that doesn't mean the tablet killed the console.
Streaming gaming services (onlive) somewhere in that timeframe (20 years) will be what kill consoles, not tablets.
Some years ago people predicted that PC performance would stop because people didn't need more power. But the power improved anyway and with it a change in what people could do. Truth is the i7 is ludicrous performance based on predicted needs 10 years ago, and yet here I am seeing my Core2Duo struggle with 1080p video editing that I never thought I'd be doing and wanting an upgrade. Simple HTML browsing has become processor intensive HTML5 and similar interactive experiences. When people are recording 3D 1080p or HDR photos or whatever the future will be, and wanting to edit that on their tablet, they'll be looking for more power. So you're right, people don't need more power than iPad 2, and yet they'll get it, and it'll then be used for new purposes, particularly with the most demanding pasttime, games.
Yes compute power has been beyond what most people need. That's why you see tablets/smartphones in the first place. They can pack the power of an old pc from 10 years back into a portable device.
That's technology.
For most uses, a tablet/netbook is enough.
However we aren't talking most uses,
we're talking gaming. Gaming will always need more power. And tablets by their very nature will always limit what power is available.
Getting back on topic to the here and now of an Apple Console...
I think going back to my initial thoughts on the subject, consoles are a means to an end to play specific games. In that frame of thought, first priority for Sony/MS at this point has got to be in arranging longterm exclusive content/partnerships.
Content will be key.
Another factor will be in what hardware model do they place their bets to combat this new threat? Rapid replacement, or traditional 6 year cycle? Big implications on hardware either way but to think Apple will not bring bog hardware to compete on spec for a console is foolish. Apple competes on spec in every market they're in. At the time ipad2 came out, no tablet was even close. Same was true for iphone4. Mac was also touted for the hardware in the box. I don't expect that Apple will roll over and put a wii on the shelf so it will be important for Sony/MS to bring their A-game.
Another aspect I'd look at is interface.
Kinect style interface is perfect for the livingroom (it just needs higher res and lower lag). If I were in MS' shoes, I'd work to secure whatever patents were necessary to protect it, and look to license it to Sony (the fee sum isn't important).
Odd as it sounds, having both MS and Sony supporting the interface would have a larger sum of games and developers supporting it, and more gamers expecting it. This would put Apple in an odd position of not having it and though most gamers these days dismiss the interface as a casual-only inaccurate lag-fest, improving the lag and accuracy will open up many more experiences and nuances to existing experiences.
That would be my gameplan to combat this Apple console.
