This is where Sony and MS have a big leg up on Nintendo, in my opinion. When the day comes that consoles can no longer thrive, Sony and MS can still maintain their subscription based services and their wide user base and move to a digital service that you can access via your television set, computer, or mobile device. Hard copies could still exist in some way, as long as they were compatible with both PCs and the TVs we'll have in our living room.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
David Jaffe: "The next generation of hardware will be the last consoles."
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
My gripe is less about privacy (I'm pretty comfortable about how I manage my online identity -- you can find out my name pretty easily, but I manage what data is public pretty well) and more about companies being companies, and giving me the shaft.
When dealing with a company whose stated aim is make money, it's probably a good idea to have as strong a position as you can when buying products from them. Migrating over to the cloud is like opening your wallet and letting them have continual access to its contents. I don't want to be in a position where they're taking a regular sum from my bank account just so that I have "access" to something. As we've seen this week with MGO going down, services are terrible. They're not always there, and any money you invested into it goes down the toilet when the company dumps the product. I don't want to invest in something and watch it go under because it's not profitable. That'll just lead to a more conservative approach to gaming than we have now. At least when the Dreamcast wasn't financial successful, I still had my hardware and all the wonderful games that came out for it. If Dreamcast was something in the cloud, Shenmue (for example) wouldn't be something I could return to at whim, but something that evaporated a long time ago.
I don't think being against that is particularly conservative, when such a business practice of putting everything on the cloud is pretty illiberal in itself.
I'm not a fan of streaming either but you have to realize the vast majority of gamers are nowhere near as picky as you. Streaming is starting to become viable with the new tech Nvidia has, under ideal network conditions it actually delivers comparable latency to a console. They've got the overhead of capturing and encoding down to 10ms.
Of course, we're still a LONG ways away from everyone being able to take advantage of streaming. But for those with decent internet, it's becoming a reality.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
No, not everyone will be able to stream games like Uncharted--even in 10 years. It's not happening unless game companies are content with cutting out a sizable chunk of the population with either terrible internet (that, despite GAF saying otherwise, it not really improving) or bandwidth caps.
That only works if things change in the broadband industry
VHS didn't exist THAT much longer than the console industry did. Consoles are better compared to computers and OSes than movie formats, you really don't need anything but the ability to play at a certain resolution/quality to look great on the consumer end, but video games absolutely need what power they can get and the correct controller.
I wonder just how IDEAL that is, and how well it ends up working in practice for most people. Guess we'll see when they implant it, unless it's already implanted anyway.I'm not a fan of streaming either but you have to realize the vast majority of gamers are nowhere near as picky as you. Streaming is starting to become viable with the new tech Nvidia has, under ideal network conditions it actually delivers comparable latency to a console. They've got the overhead of capturing and encoding down to 10ms.
Marty Chinn
Member
Unless I'm reading that wrong, that's still a total of 161ms of lag in that scenario which is over 5 frames in a 30fps game, or 10 frames in a 60 fps game.
I think he's right to a point. In 10 years I just don't see consoles being the same as consoles as we see them today. Traditional consoles will most definitely be a thing of the past. The question then becomes what they will evolve into, whether it's what jaffe predicts with a streaming service or something else entirely, no one knows.
I'm saying hologram based streaming consoles. Save this post for 10 years and come back to see if I'm right.
I'm saying hologram based streaming consoles. Save this post for 10 years and come back to see if I'm right.
I don't doubt consoles will change, they may even still fall under "traditional", but look at how different the 360 and PS3 are compared to the Xbox and PS2 before. Could be a similar thing going on here, where services are ramped up. I do suspect the adage "the more things change, the more they stay the same" could remain valid here.
Yep.
I'm not sure what world these people live in. The United States is mostly rural and suburbia. It doesn't have low latency fiber internet, and won't for at least 10 years.
Incendiary
Banned
I can actually see something like this happen. Both the PS3 and 360 are heading towards a more global home entertainment system. The Wii U is going to have a built-in screen where you can play some games on it and it can be self-contained without even needing a TV. Add that to the fact that companies want to "fix" the used game market and keep people from reselling games, I can easily see a future where the idea of a "console" dedicated to gaming is obsolete...instead you by a television or home entertainment system that hooks up to Netflix, Hulu, PSN, XBLA, Nintendo's eShop, and you download directly to a hard drive. And that will start to compete with Apple and their technology.
I don't think it'll happen any time soon, but it could go that way easily if that's the direction the companies decide on going.
I don't think it'll happen any time soon, but it could go that way easily if that's the direction the companies decide on going.
Future PhaZe
Member
So...if I don't have a console...and I don't have a PC...how am I gaming on my TV? A video card packaged inside TV models?
wtf..
wtf..
BruiserBear
Banned
It's funny how many people think we're going to be streaming EVERYTHING in the next 10 years. As if the Internet for the entire planet is suddenly going to be 10 times better in a decade.
It's the flying car of our time.
Though I hope we have automated cars in 10 years. Large adoption by 2022 of automated cars is much more plausible than playing 1080p games in suburbia over 4G LTE (one of the ones with massive data rates).
Dion Blaster
Member
I'm still undecided on this issue. A few points rattling around in my brain:
1. The Luminous and Unreal demoes looked amazing, but there's just not that jump in graphics if that is the best we can look forward too. I mean on a technical level you can tell it's ground breaking and that tons of work went into them, but are these graphics really gonna get people going out and buying more consoles?
2. For the first time I am considering buying a gaming PC. That has more to do with Steam than anything else, but retail distribution just isn't working. Every game starts at $60 then plunges within weeks. While I value actually owning the games and admiring the box art and all of that, it's just so convenient looking at your list of games just a click away, and knowing how little you spent on them.
3. I don't think streaming straight to your TV like OnLive is in the near future. Internet speeds for everyone will have to improve massively. Gaming is a mass media market, if the majority of people's internet connection can't handle streaming games then that will eliminate a huge part of the market.
4. But at the same time I don't think PC's will rule the future either. Having a gaming PC requires a much higher entry fee and is not nearly as convenient as consoles for most people. You don't have to deal with downloads (although this is already starting to burden consoles a bit), drivers, RAM, processors, graphics cards, etc. in a console.
5. I don't buy that iPads and crap like that will take away too much of the market. Either they were never into real games in the first place or they will eventually want something more than App Store mini games. It seems most people interested in gaming will eventually want to own a game they can really sink their teeth into.
1. The Luminous and Unreal demoes looked amazing, but there's just not that jump in graphics if that is the best we can look forward too. I mean on a technical level you can tell it's ground breaking and that tons of work went into them, but are these graphics really gonna get people going out and buying more consoles?
2. For the first time I am considering buying a gaming PC. That has more to do with Steam than anything else, but retail distribution just isn't working. Every game starts at $60 then plunges within weeks. While I value actually owning the games and admiring the box art and all of that, it's just so convenient looking at your list of games just a click away, and knowing how little you spent on them.
3. I don't think streaming straight to your TV like OnLive is in the near future. Internet speeds for everyone will have to improve massively. Gaming is a mass media market, if the majority of people's internet connection can't handle streaming games then that will eliminate a huge part of the market.
4. But at the same time I don't think PC's will rule the future either. Having a gaming PC requires a much higher entry fee and is not nearly as convenient as consoles for most people. You don't have to deal with downloads (although this is already starting to burden consoles a bit), drivers, RAM, processors, graphics cards, etc. in a console.
5. I don't buy that iPads and crap like that will take away too much of the market. Either they were never into real games in the first place or they will eventually want something more than App Store mini games. It seems most people interested in gaming will eventually want to own a game they can really sink their teeth into.
krameriffic
Member
A lot of people seem to be posting kneejerk reactions to the mere notion of gaming dying on any level without reading it or really understanding the market and how it's changing. That's not what he's talking about.
Ragnarok
Member
Certainly not impossible to think that. Think of what speeds were like in 2000 as compared to now. I remember my internet provider in my podunk ohio hometown offered 256 kilobit bandwidth for $60/mo back in 2000. The same provider now offers 10mbps speeds for the same price :dunno: 10mbps is still really shitty but 10 years is a long time for stuff like this. Not to mention the increase in mobile networks is getting pretty awesome.
Dion Blaster
Member
How will this work exactly? What will Sony and MS provide exactly that will be carried over? Genuine question. If anything Nintendo would be in a great condition considering they would still have the most wanted IPs. Nintendo consoles have basically survived on only Nintendo games anyways, lots of people desire them. They could make a killing if their games are available on every gaming device.
All they have to really hope for is that cable companies license the tech. Then that means you'd just buy "Games streaming" as part of your cable bill and their cable box would have the Online/Gaikai consoles built in, and you'd be guaranteed to have a local server node and only one hop or two for networking.
That's acceptable, keep in mind the chart is also measuring display lag.
Nemesis121
Member
It's gonna crash again, next gen the average cost of a AAA title will be $200....lol...
No saying that once you are married to one set of achievements/trophies the last thing you want to do is start over on another system/platform.
And yep, no computer desk. PC sits next to tv. HDMI to tv and dvi to second monitor that sits off to the side on a bookshelf that is about as high as to where my ribs are. wireless keyboard and mouse. Screens are either mirrored or extended depending on needs. Boxee remote for controlling hulu desktop, boxee etc, but honestly I still find it easier to just make all my local media mp4 so its appletv compatible. wired 360 controller, rather a wireless one but i don't want to spend the money.
the most use my pc gets is surfing/forums. I can do that with an iPad, stand and bluetooth keyboard.
AcceptableGhost
Member
If you don't like PC gaming you are pretty much a communist. PC gaming is democracy.
(insert american eagle image here)
(insert american eagle image here)
But PC is where all the F2P games and free DLC are. Ergo, it's ALSO communist, possibly MORE communist as the three consoles are just dictatorships.
If you don't like PC gaming you are pretty much a communist. PC gaming is democracy.
ok
doesn't sound like you'll have a bright future too.
Pc gaming is not too tied to Microsoft to be considered a democracy.
Marty Chinn
Member
You have to factor all that in though because it all adds up and becomes apparent to the end user. Also I have to imagine those numbers are ideal and situations will be quite often not as good as the ideal numbers. To me having that as the bare minimum seems borderline not good. It's one thing if it's 10ms, but it's a whole different ball game at 161 ms minimum. Depending on the game, the lag can be pretty noticeable.
Anticitizen One
Banned
Video game consoles have no place in a world of tablets, smart devices, and cloud computing
Riposte
Member
Evidently false. Maybe wait until it becomes true before you say it.
I'm still not convinced that tablets and smartphones have replaced consoles. I don't see where they've penetrated the living room.
That's the thing: there's still nothing that's thoroughly taken over the living room space the same way a console or Blu-Ray player has. When people want to enjoy media on their TV sets, they still turn on a cable box, DVD player, or game console - the same as they did 20 years ago (a VCR in that case). Nothing new has swept that space the same way smartphones and tablets have. We have a few boxes with apps and smart TVs, but nothing that has become ubiquitous to the point of being the "standard" and threatening to replace cable television for the mainstream.
I think expanding the possibilities for what consoles offer on the TV set is where they might continue to be relevant. If Apple releases an Apple TV with the full app store then shit might start getting real (I don't see everyone paying $1500 for a whole new television set just for apps). Microsoft has a shot at providing a similar kind of app store experience with Xbox. Sony and even Nintendo are slowly approaching that point. It's just about who becomes the "standard" in that area.
That's the thing: there's still nothing that's thoroughly taken over the living room space the same way a console or Blu-Ray player has. When people want to enjoy media on their TV sets, they still turn on a cable box, DVD player, or game console - the same as they did 20 years ago (a VCR in that case). Nothing new has swept that space the same way smartphones and tablets have. We have a few boxes with apps and smart TVs, but nothing that has become ubiquitous to the point of being the "standard" and threatening to replace cable television for the mainstream.
I think expanding the possibilities for what consoles offer on the TV set is where they might continue to be relevant. If Apple releases an Apple TV with the full app store then shit might start getting real (I don't see everyone paying $1500 for a whole new television set just for apps). Microsoft has a shot at providing a similar kind of app store experience with Xbox. Sony and even Nintendo are slowly approaching that point. It's just about who becomes the "standard" in that area.
soulassssns
Banned
Gaming on Tablets and Smart devices is crap compared to a "AAA" game on a console. Cloud gaming obviously depends on the user having a good broadband connection which not everybody has these days.
njean777
Member
I agree I have not once ever seen anybody use an Ipad in a living room where they were streaming a movie/game off of it to their TV. I don't see that happening in even 5 years from now. We on Gaf may be tech savy, but the majority of consumers are not and will go back to what they are comfortable with.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
I wish I had enough faith for one more game. Unless he's talking about how we can get refunds for our copies of broken ass Twisted Metal, I don't wanna read a word from him.
On topic, I know streaming/DD is coming but I think it's a ways off. More than a generation away. There will always be a large contingent of people who don't want to or can't adopt DD.
Theaters have no place in a world with televisions in every household.
... Maybe that post was in jest, I just wanted to reply with that anyway.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
You know all those systems suck for gaming right? I don't see any of those ever replacing a dedicated gaming machine. There will be new gaming experiences granted, but there needs to be a big change in technology to make consoles go away... apple, tablets replacing gaming? Maybe for stay at home moms ...
Solid warrior
Banned
Home consoles will most likely be replaced by iOS, Android and Windows tablets and smartphones. The technology for these portable devices are quickly evolving and they're producing somewhat nice looking graphics and gameplay.
I agree with your other points, but what was shown in that video was certifiably a generational leap, to my eyes. If (IF!) next-gen consoles give us games that look exactly like what we saw in the Luminous tech demo - without ridiculous, 6+ year development schedules - I would be on the bandwagon on day 1.
Of course, I know better than to actually expect graphics like that during gameplay; they may as well have shown a CG movie. I'm honestly not envisioning much better than what we saw of Watch Dogs from next gen consoles, and if that turns out to be the case, they can all rot.
The graphics will always be behind dedicated consoles, and we simply won't get gameplay experiences close to even what the PS2/Xbox generation offered out of iOS/Android applications due to touch controls. I just don't see core gamers suddenly being OK with playing sports, FPS, action, fighting, and any other games that require quick reflexes and complex inputs on a bloody touch screen. You can do some things well on a touch screen, and that will be enough for millions upon millions of casuals, but for a not-insignificant population of gamers it simply isn't acceptable.
Starbuck2907
Member
Jaffe is wrong.
Consoles will be around for a long, long while to come. He's right that, they may become integrated into TV's or other consumer devices at some point, but you will likely still be able to by them individually as well. Here are my thoughts on consoles and streaming games in general.
Let's look at similar, although admittedly different market. Apple is the #1 retailer of music in the U.S. But Walmart is still tied with Amazon for the #2 position. The lesson? Well, you can stream or download MP3's, but there is still a HUGE market for physical discs. The "CD" industry has been dying for about 10-15 years now, but it is still a huge market.
There are several reasons why streaming games via console may eventually be a market, but will likely not "take over" anytime soon or in the next 10 years.
1) From what I have seen, the video from streamed games is compressed to save bandwidth, so it looks worse than a regular game console. Some gamers will resist putting up with the worse visuals. Even if the cloud can play the game at max settings, compression will still affect quality. Downloading a game or having a physical disc would still provide a better picture until ALL areas of the United States have huge bandwidth and unlimited caps. The bandwidth cap problem is particularly a problem as isp's claim that they are having trouble keeping up with demand now.
2) In 10 years, parts of the U.S. will still exist that do not have high speed internet access. And, some that do, will have poor speed and pings that won't run streaming internet. Right now, I live in a city of about 200,000 people and my AT&T DSL connection (6 megs download, 1.5 megs upload) works fine with every internet service (Netflix and Hulu both stream in HD, Steam works fine, Xbox Live and PSN work fine, etc) that I own, BUT it still won't run games on "OnLive". Even plugged up direct to my router, OnLive tells me that my network is not fast enough.
3) Based on #1 and #2, I'd suggest that currently the infrastructure is not currently in place to reach 100% of consumer households. In 10 years, I'm still not sure the infrastructure would be in place. Not only do we need high speed internet in more locations, but we also need universal *high bandwidth* to make streaming games from the cloud a reality. If consoles were to go streaming or even download "only" manufacturers would be giving up a certain percentage of consumer homes. They will not want to abandon that market. Even people with bad (or no) internet still want to play games. While that market may be smaller in 10 years, it will still exist. You've got to remember that Nintendo has done quite well for itself through 2012 with the worst online infrastructure known to man. Right now, and probably for the next 10 years, selling shovelware at the Wal-Mart bargin bin is a profitable proposition. If you're at Wal-Mart, and your kid sees a game, you buy it for him. That transaction doesn't take place if there are not physical goods on shelves. So while things may continue to move more toward digital, the physical games space and the need for consoles to play them on is not going away anytime soon.
4) It would eliminate the used games market. I'm not sure that retailers or consumers want there. If there is demand for a product (even a used product), the marketplace usually provides the product so long as it is legal to do so. There is money to be made on used games. Gamestop and other companies may try to find a way to share the used game revenue with publishers if they fear losing that market. If there is demand for a product, it will likely continue to exist.
5) In the long run, console manufacturers still make a profit on consoles. They get license fees from publishers, they make money on peripherals, and eventually, they make a profit on the consoles themselves. Nintendo makes money on consoles from day one. Why would console manufacturers want to give up that revenue stream? They may lose some money up front, but in the long run, they make a profit. A lot of businesses are run that way - not just the console business. And, companies use their consoles to help prop other other parts of their business. Sony, for example, used the Playstation brand to popularize DVD's and Blu-Rays. It was their "trojan horse" to get those players into people's homes because Sony gets a share of the profits if those proprietary formats become popular (to be clear, I realize that Sony does not "own" Blu-Ray, but they are a member of the consortium and they sell a ton of Blu-Ray players. They helped create demand for Blu-ray discs and players by getting the technology kickstarted in people's homes with the PS3.)
Overall, we will likely see an increase in the amount of downloadable games and streaming capabilities, but I don't think that physical games and consoles are going away in the next decade. The high-speed infrastructure still probably won't be totally ready, and there will still be too much money to be made in having a physical presence at retail (especially casual purchases, like the one mentioned above), and money from console sales will still be a nice revenue stream that nobody will see a reason to give up.
Consoles will be around for a long, long while to come. He's right that, they may become integrated into TV's or other consumer devices at some point, but you will likely still be able to by them individually as well. Here are my thoughts on consoles and streaming games in general.
Let's look at similar, although admittedly different market. Apple is the #1 retailer of music in the U.S. But Walmart is still tied with Amazon for the #2 position. The lesson? Well, you can stream or download MP3's, but there is still a HUGE market for physical discs. The "CD" industry has been dying for about 10-15 years now, but it is still a huge market.
There are several reasons why streaming games via console may eventually be a market, but will likely not "take over" anytime soon or in the next 10 years.
1) From what I have seen, the video from streamed games is compressed to save bandwidth, so it looks worse than a regular game console. Some gamers will resist putting up with the worse visuals. Even if the cloud can play the game at max settings, compression will still affect quality. Downloading a game or having a physical disc would still provide a better picture until ALL areas of the United States have huge bandwidth and unlimited caps. The bandwidth cap problem is particularly a problem as isp's claim that they are having trouble keeping up with demand now.
2) In 10 years, parts of the U.S. will still exist that do not have high speed internet access. And, some that do, will have poor speed and pings that won't run streaming internet. Right now, I live in a city of about 200,000 people and my AT&T DSL connection (6 megs download, 1.5 megs upload) works fine with every internet service (Netflix and Hulu both stream in HD, Steam works fine, Xbox Live and PSN work fine, etc) that I own, BUT it still won't run games on "OnLive". Even plugged up direct to my router, OnLive tells me that my network is not fast enough.
3) Based on #1 and #2, I'd suggest that currently the infrastructure is not currently in place to reach 100% of consumer households. In 10 years, I'm still not sure the infrastructure would be in place. Not only do we need high speed internet in more locations, but we also need universal *high bandwidth* to make streaming games from the cloud a reality. If consoles were to go streaming or even download "only" manufacturers would be giving up a certain percentage of consumer homes. They will not want to abandon that market. Even people with bad (or no) internet still want to play games. While that market may be smaller in 10 years, it will still exist. You've got to remember that Nintendo has done quite well for itself through 2012 with the worst online infrastructure known to man. Right now, and probably for the next 10 years, selling shovelware at the Wal-Mart bargin bin is a profitable proposition. If you're at Wal-Mart, and your kid sees a game, you buy it for him. That transaction doesn't take place if there are not physical goods on shelves. So while things may continue to move more toward digital, the physical games space and the need for consoles to play them on is not going away anytime soon.
4) It would eliminate the used games market. I'm not sure that retailers or consumers want there. If there is demand for a product (even a used product), the marketplace usually provides the product so long as it is legal to do so. There is money to be made on used games. Gamestop and other companies may try to find a way to share the used game revenue with publishers if they fear losing that market. If there is demand for a product, it will likely continue to exist.
5) In the long run, console manufacturers still make a profit on consoles. They get license fees from publishers, they make money on peripherals, and eventually, they make a profit on the consoles themselves. Nintendo makes money on consoles from day one. Why would console manufacturers want to give up that revenue stream? They may lose some money up front, but in the long run, they make a profit. A lot of businesses are run that way - not just the console business. And, companies use their consoles to help prop other other parts of their business. Sony, for example, used the Playstation brand to popularize DVD's and Blu-Rays. It was their "trojan horse" to get those players into people's homes because Sony gets a share of the profits if those proprietary formats become popular (to be clear, I realize that Sony does not "own" Blu-Ray, but they are a member of the consortium and they sell a ton of Blu-Ray players. They helped create demand for Blu-ray discs and players by getting the technology kickstarted in people's homes with the PS3.)
Overall, we will likely see an increase in the amount of downloadable games and streaming capabilities, but I don't think that physical games and consoles are going away in the next decade. The high-speed infrastructure still probably won't be totally ready, and there will still be too much money to be made in having a physical presence at retail (especially casual purchases, like the one mentioned above), and money from console sales will still be a nice revenue stream that nobody will see a reason to give up.
I think the next consoles will be the last successful ones. I agree with what he was saying about the mobile/tablet platforms cutting dramatically into the Wii's fanbase. Nintendo supporters are not enough to carry a system alone anymore, as shown by the Gamecube's losses.
I think the Wii U will be Nintendo's last console, but MS and Sony will probably have one more round after their upcoming ones. It pains me to think everything "major" will be digital and full of obnoxious DRMs, but that just means I won't be spending a lot on games ever again.
I think the Wii U will be Nintendo's last console, but MS and Sony will probably have one more round after their upcoming ones. It pains me to think everything "major" will be digital and full of obnoxious DRMs, but that just means I won't be spending a lot on games ever again.
Solid warrior
Banned
I'd like for Home consoles to be alive and well in the next-generations to come, but I think the market demand for it will significantly drop someday which will affect the game publishers and they'll start thinking about moving to other solutions.
As for the controller problem, I think the android allows you to use your PS3 controller to play your game, otherwise, you should wait for the Tegra 3 optimized controller built by Nyko/Nvidia.
This controller will save us all from the laggy/crappy touchscreens.
http://androidcommunity.com/nvidia-...aypad-controllers-for-tegra-tablets-20120605/
What I don't understand is what people expect to happen after consoles. Games still need to be made... the video game industry still brings in millions if not billions of dollars, and it is growing - more people are playing games than ever before. So how exactly will people play CoD or Uncharted or GTA without a console? That's the big question.
Yes, the modern video game tech is becoming obsolete. But it doesn't need to go away, it just needs to evolve. The Television industry is in dire need of the same kind of evolution..
Yes, the modern video game tech is becoming obsolete. But it doesn't need to go away, it just needs to evolve. The Television industry is in dire need of the same kind of evolution..
What? The company that's done the best this generation is going to be the one out of the race first? As someone else mentioned recently, Nintendo can still take yearly losses until the 2050's until it becomes a big issue due to all of the money they have, and there's lack of debt on nearly all of it.
Gimmicky as all hell. The real market for iOS/Android gaming is in smartphones, because most of the planet has or will soon have an iPhone/Galaxy phone. Bringing along a separate controller is going to be highly unappealing for most phone users, and adding physical controls to phones ruins the aesthetic.I'd like for Home consoles to be alive and well in the next-generations to come, but I think the market demand for it will significantly drop someday which will affect the game publishers and they'll start thinking about moving to other solutions.
As for the controller problem, I think the android allows you to use your PS3 controller to play your game, otherwise, you should wait for the Tegra 3 optimized controller built by Nyko/Nvidia.
This controller will save us all from the laggy/crappy touchscreens.
http://androidcommunity.com/nvidia-...aypad-controllers-for-tegra-tablets-20120605/
I can see a wireless controller for the iPad, but at that point you may as well be playing on a console.