Apple approved the Steam remote play app that allows PC games to be played over the network to the ATV. 2 days ago The new Apple TV remote reportedly lacks controller functionality for tvOS games, instead prompting you to use an older remote or a PlayStation or Xbox controller. Now with PS controllers gaining ability to play on ATV. I’m hoping SteamLink is allowed to use it too! But PS4 remote play via my ATV and a PS4 controller would be awesome considering I’d be able to play off potentially the 2 (but getting a third) ATVs in my home. PS Remote Play The power of PlayStation® gaming, streamed to PS5™, PS4™, PC, Mac, Apple iOS or Android devices. Ssh key for sftp. A PS4 or PS5 console is required to stream your games to other devices. Remote play cannot be used on your mobile device’s cellular data network. A redesigned Apple TV remote from Universal Electronics fixes everything that’s wrong with the official version. Photos: AndreyPopov/iStock; Ash Edmonds /Unsplash By Jared Newman 2 minute Read.
«123»Playstation Remote Apple Tv
Comments
Best Remote For Apple Tv
- What?! Why is it one step forward two back with Apple now? Most 3D tvOS games use the accelerometer/gyro. Plenty are abandoned too and will never be updated to function properly without the new remote. So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller that is pretty much essential if you want to play 3D games. Even more reason to believe Apple isn't serious about AppleTV games. But of course it's all fine really because most importantly, that's $1.50 extra profit per AppleTV.edited April 22
- A TV remote should have not ever been considered or use as a GAME CONTROLLER in the first place.
'Anything can be forced to converge, but the problem is that products are about tradeoffs, and you begin to make tradeoffs to the point where what you have left doesn't please anyone,'. 'You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator, but those things are probably not going be pleasing to the user.' — Tim Cook 2012
In this case, it look like Apple just canceled its Toaster/Frig mistake! 😎
I'd argue this shows that they know the Siri Remote was a shit game controller and are phasing it out for anything other than basic game use. Anyone who gives a shit about gaming would have already bought an Xbox/PS/MFi controller or had one around anyway, or just buy a used one on Ebay or at GameStop.What?! Why is it one step forward two back with Apple now? Most 3D tvOS games use the accelerometer/gyro. Plenty are abandoned too and will never be updated to function properly without the new remote. So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller that is pretty much essential if you want to play 3D games. Even more reason to believe Apple isn't serious about AppleTV games. But of course it's all fine really because most importantly, that's $1.50 extra profit per AppleTV.- I HAD A FUC*ING FEELING THIS PIECE OF SHI* HAD FUNCTIONALITY LIKE THE GYROSCOPE REMOVED.
HARD HARD PASS. - A TV remote should have not ever been considered or use as a GAME CONTROLLER in the first place.
'Anything can be forced to converge, but the problem is that products are about tradeoffs, and you begin to make tradeoffs to the point where what you have left doesn't please anyone,'. 'You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator, but those things are probably not going be pleasing to the user.' — Tim Cook 2012
In this case, it look like Apple just canceled its Toaster/Frig mistake! 😎Explain how removing something invisible adds value? Especially since some games REQUIRE it. - I concur with Fastasleep, I think Apple changed its mind about having a combo remote and game controller and will either: a) redesign their own controller to be better or b) give up on the idea and leave game controllers to the game controller makers. Yes, that leaves a few games and a tiny minority of players in a lurch for a little while, but in the end you'll be getting better games that can use better controllers.
As I've often said, when Apple decides to go in a new direction with something they tend to burn the entire house down and only give you a tiki hut for a year while they build you an ultimately-better house. This can be aggravating, to be sure.But I prefer it vastly to Microsoft's 'we're just going to paint over stuff and maybe add a new hedge here and there but ultimately not change very much at all over the course of a couple of decades' approach. - One of Apple's biggest missteps with gaming was the requirement that games for the Apple TV should be playable using the Siri Remote. I speculate that the requirement pretty much killed any complex games from being developed and destroyed the potential of the Apple TV for games.
I can understand that it didn't make sense for Apple to allow for games on the Apple TV, but not have any dedicated first-party controller - hence them deciding to set the Siri Remote as the official controller.
It may have been better for them to have debuted Apple TV games with a dedicated game controller.
Of course the have access to all the data points they need and I guess it didn't make sense for them to make a controller.
Yep, and it’s dumb, IMHO. Apple needs a first-party remote where they can control the hardware and software and provide updated firmware for that’ll work flawlessly with the rest of their ecosystem, and they can include a U1 chip for seamless switching between devices that’ll go along with iCloud saving and such. It’s really a no- brainer to me if they were serious about gaming on all of their platforms. They can add the haptic engine instead of rumble gear, use touch and scrolling and directional clicks, specific buttons and layout with icons that mimic the Apple TV remote for play/pause, home, volume +/-, add menu (iconic Apple logo button) and make it as ergonomically comfy as possible with wireless, USB-C with smart-charging for long-lasting battery life. There’s just so much potential for not only uniqueness, but advancement here!So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller that is pretty much essential if you want to play 3D games.They could have something in-store for whenever their VR equipment comes out — perhaps in combo with the “newer” HomePod — but there’s nothing wrong with different controllers for different types of hardware. Or maybe they’re big push on gaming will be with their VR stuff and XBox/PS/MFi is just bridging until then? 🤔 Still, I’d LOVE for them to improve on what’s been around for a while with general controllers, something specifically Apple-ish. One can dream….- It would make sense if Apple actually made a real controller. But it doesn’t, and I doubt it will. Stick a toe in wriggle it about, pull it out, then race onto the next shiny.Example eleventy zillion and three that Apple Doesn’t Get Games. Why anyone would pay for a game subscription service from this mob is a mystery.
- edited April 23
PS4/PS5 or Xbox controllers are fine if you already own them with a console, but if you're going to buy something new for App Store or Apple Arcade gaming you would be better off with a SteelSeries Nimbus+ due to the significantly better battery life per charge. That model gets 50 hours on a single charge, while the Sony/MS controllers are going to be around 10-15 hours with a rechargeable battery.elijahg said: So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller that is pretty much essential if you want to play 3D games. - maybe Apple can just gift the one person who games on Apple TV a PS5
- So no motion detection and no “find my” features? At least it looks pretty..
No - A lot (most?) of people already have a a PS/MS controller. And there are MFI (Steel) controllers, and the official PS controllers that are $50-$70.So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller
oh, find my would have been a nice touch, but I wonder how much more it would have added to the cost?So no motion detection and no “find my” features? At least it looks pretty..- Yeah, we always use Xbox controllers, so no biggie.
How is a ps4 controller $99 dollars when they can be had for $65 brand new on Amazon or via Walmart or purchased used for probably $45 from GME. Also, if your serious about games you probably already have a compatible controller to use because no one is buying an apple tv strictly for it gaming functions. I will say if apple wanted to get serious about games though they need to stop being anemic with the storage like nintendo and do more than 64gb because if you have some big games and some tv apps the apple TV still will then randomly close arcade when storage gets low low. I've experienced it myself.What?! Why is it one step forward two back with Apple now? Most 3D tvOS games use the accelerometer/gyro. Plenty are abandoned too and will never be updated to function properly without the new remote. So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller that is pretty much essential if you want to play 3D games. Even more reason to believe Apple isn't serious about AppleTV games. But of course it's all fine really because most importantly, that's $1.50 extra profit per AppleTV.
Right? Also, one has to assume Apple knew how many people even used the remote to play games and how many games would be impacted by dropping these features and that informed their decision to do so. With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth some folks are doing you have to wonder if they will even notice an impact.Any actually good games affected?- Using the remote as a controller was always stupid to begin with. Plenty of real controllers to use, and games should expect a real controller. Hoping this is a sign that they'll lift the requirement to use the remote-as-controller.
- edited April 23
What kind of gamer uses a dopey remote as a controller? If this is a deal breaker for you, you weren't into games anyway.I HAD A FUC*ING FEELING THIS PIECE OF SHI* HAD FUNCTIONALITY LIKE THE GYROSCOPE REMOVED.
HARD HARD PASS.