You mean the game it was based on is 18 years old. Try playing the remake version on the Gamecube. I'll wait.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Resident Evil 4 for iPhone Will Cost $60
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It’s really a long time ago when I played games. Happened a lot in between. Loved my PS3, not that I played a lot of games but it’s longevity. Originally bought as a Blu-ray player. I don’t see any reason why I should upgrade to 15pm when I have the 14pm. But yes everyone is different. I am more interested what PS5 pro or switch 2 might bring.
Many people replying here are unaware that the 2005 game was remastered as a 2023 title using this year's gaming tech.
Yet they’re totally comfortable predicting how this is doomed with absolute certainty. 😆
About 8 of 100 phone users replace after 1 year. There is no shame at all. That isn't the norm.
You're likely to replace that by year 3-5.
If you are intending to buy a gaming PC or console then you aren't the market Apple or Google are focusing on.
They're more worried that the platform that they've formed an emotional attachment to will get crushed by Apple or Google. A valid concern but it can turn into another Sega.
If the game runs well, there is a market for them. Give it a couple more years, or another console gen, I wouldn’t be surprise consoles will be competing with the likes of Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Netflix and Google.
Convergence is a matter of time and with the way tech is going, it wouldn’t be long before PC gamers can game on tablets and phones too with the same if not better quality.
There wouldn’t be a need to get a dedicated machine.
Convergence is a matter of time and with the way tech is going, it wouldn’t be long before PC gamers can game on tablets and phones too with the same if not better quality.
There wouldn’t be a need to get a dedicated machine.
Economies of scale and R&D budget of ARM brands out paces any x86 brand.
When Windows 11 on ARM laptops executed properly they will push down laptop prices below the $799 average laptop MSRP.
Believe me, when you google the average prices of devices we all own you will get shocked by what most people are willing to pay for.
It reinforces the concept that Apple prices their goods for the top 20% of any market.
Yes there is a ZERO percent change I will pay $60 for a mobile. I won't even pay what Square charges for FF titles, and I love those games/
You've certainly been consistent in your messaging here but honestly you all need to take a step back for a second. Let's agree that mobile gaming is already huge in terms of revenue and that, as phones become more powerful, undoubtedly some AAA gaming on phones is going to become a thing.
But let's be real, we're year 3 into the transition to next gen consoles and so many games have been shipping on PS4 and Xbox One that we probably haven't yet seen games taking full advantage of current consoles. RE4 on Apple's current flagship phone runs at a lower resolution than on the PS4, which is 10 years old. Throw thermal throttling, power supply and storage into the mix and the gap between consoles and phones is unlikely to close anytime soon, particularly as games actually start to take advantage of the PS5 and Xbox S|X hardware.
You keep referring to 5 billion phone users, and I don't disagree that this is a vast potential market in the long run, but let's keep in mind that it will take an awful lot of time before many of these people will have a phone in their hands that's even as powerful as the 15 Pro is today, let alone keep up with more demanding games. There is a vast amount of Android midrangers in there and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people upgraded right now to a new phone that is less powerful than an iPhone 11. I'm really not sure where your confidence that 9 out of 10 users will have RT-capable phones in 5 years, which coincidentally is also the point where we might see another console generation.
I really don't think Sony and Microsoft have anything to be immediately concerned about. Now, if you're a company that has been very successfully selling games for its vastly underpowered portable game console that story might be different. I'm not sure how the Switch compares to modern phones in terms of power, but considering it was outdated when it released it honestly wouldn't surprise me if most of its games, or at least comparable games, couldn't run on modern iPhones and flagship Androids already. But if that's the case, the question is why hasn't anyone taken advantage of this if it's such a massive untapped market?
Anyway, time will tell and I'm generally excited by better games for the iPhone, even though I won't buy them at this price point, but honestly you guys are getting ahead of yourselves.
When Apple responded to the Netbook market with the iPad, I think it showed it was not for the majority of the global market. It has its niche and is content with not fighting for the very bottom. Other companies provide better options than Apple anyways.
Plus, Capcom can’t start the iOS console-grade market selling RE at $1.99. It will be interesting to see if they hold the price or will adjust if sales aren’t “substantial”.
It would be interesting to see how Windows on ARM will challenge Apple. Competition is always good.
People aren’t releasing movies and tv shows that are more difficult to play each year, so Apple TV is not getting left behind. The same can’t be said about gaming.
I know my numbers while almost anyone else cannot present any. What other counter with are emotional attachments to their gaming life being disrupted. They have disdain of the other enjoying a supposedly watered down gaming experience.
Most of the contrary replies I get are from user profiles with gaming hardware in their rooms. They make up tens of millions of persons per platform worldwide.
They forget that there are billions of others who would never buy into their hardware as buying it for 1 or 2 games over a period of approx 10 years is just stupid money.
Competition in the smartphone space is more fierce than those in PC or console. More than 1.3 billion smartphones ship annually. I would not be surprised that figure is the sum total of all brands of console per generation.
So RT hardware & 8GB RAM being available on a $42.90 Android smartphone 5 years from today is very plausible. It would never be acceptable to your user profile to buy but for billions it is mana from heaven.
I say this as you can compare any consumer PC within the same number of years and the raw performance, performance per watt and power consumption pales in comparison to any smartphone within the same time period show faster progress.
The business Apple, Google and 3rd party devs like Capcom is trying to create is to reach billions of new users who would never ever buy gaming hardware as it isn't their personality.
To expound on what I originally said... $60 RE4 on Apple & Google devices isn't for anyone with gaming hardware.
Smart moneyed people will always look for the cheapest option. It may come off as inauthentic to play RE4 on a phone but it is good enough for the new users Apple, Google and 3rd party devs are trying to reach.
To Apple, Google and 3rd party devs that's revenue that their shareholders, managers and employees care the most. Not some some childish platform rivalry.
I just watched the movie Gran Turismo and this discussion reminds me of that film... the non-gamers driving $ million race ready cars with racing teams put down & insist that anyone who started racing with the PlayStation game should never participate in motorsport. Why? Because they did not buy into the hardware.
What Sony did was make car racing accessible to more than 90 million PlayStation series fans worldwide for over a quarter of a century for less than $ thousand per generation.
Last edited:
I bought the 1st netbooks in 2007 & the 2nd iPad in 2011.
Netbooks widely disappeared in 2013. In 2022 the iPad shipped 61.8 million worldwide and makes up 38% of all tablet shipped that year.
Tablets were the superior option with the iPad being ranked #1. To sell better than the iPad you need it to MSRP below $329.
There are price strata for food. Why not games too?
Windows 11 or 12 on ARM laptops will harm Intel & ARM more than Apple.
Apple does not participate in any race to the bottom and their goods are largely inelastic.
Windows laptops on the other hand compete on performance per $.
Persons most impacted with that ARM vs x86 disruption are those enamored with piece meal upgrading of parts. It will lower the demand of modularized components and raise prices. The most visible user groups affected by this are with the lux of gaming PCs will remain as they want the purity of the PC gaming experience.
They even have a term for it: PC Master Race
The closest equivalent of this on the Mac would be the Mac Pro vs Mac Studio. Many Mac Pro users demand a Mac that they can piece meal upgrade over 15 years or more of ownership. Having the Mac Studio exist disrupts the economies of scale for the already least units of sale Mac even further. That resulted in a price increase of $1000 over the 2019 base model. That price change compensates for the projected lower sales volume.
For the PC my hope is that the price increases results in less garish RGB, 3D printed parts & plexiglass. More money focused on performance parts without automotive paint jobs. An adult's computer without failed art major aesthetics.
Last edited:
No, it is not.
Resident Evil 4 is a 2023 survival horror game developed and published by Capcom. The game was released for PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Windows, and Xbox Series X/S on March 24, 2023.
Yet, in my very humble opinion, you seem to be very unwilling to challenge your underlying assumptions to make sense of the numbers.
The Nintendo Switch is one of the best-selling, if not the best-selling, consoles of all times. Its hardware is massively underpowered, even compared to an iPhone 11 from four years ago and probably way before that in both CPU and GPU power, and it is conceptually selling the kinds of games you'd think do well on a mobile platform because it is a mobile platform and it sells them at a price that should be appealing to developers because it rarely sees the same kinds of discounts you see on other platforms, particularly on Steam.
So taken together, if your logic is 100% true, this sounds like a match made in heaven. There's no need to wait for RT or 8GB of RAM to run all kinds of games, including quite ambitious ones such as The Witcher 3. There's obviously money in it because people buy these games and you'd think the 5 billion people you keep mentioning are therefore a market waiting to be served.
I stand by my assessment that phones are unlikely to really catch up to current gen consoles anytime soon and that, as games start to take more advantage of the power of PS and Series X|S, that gap is likely to either stay as wide as at the moment or even increase again. Even if it were to close, it'll probably close right around the time we see new console hardware and the dance continues.
So really the Switch, PS4/Xbox One kind of games is what we might realistically see in the next few years, which includes the RE4 remake as it still shipped on PS4.
But beyond the obvious of Nintendo not wanting to cannibalise its own games, why haven we seen third party developers releasing games on mobiles, even if they obviously need optimisation, if they can run on a Switch? What earthly reason could there be if there's this massive group of people who'd never buy gaming hardware yet are dying to play console games?
I think you need to at least be open to the idea that the reason we haven't seen a lot of console games on phones is because these are simply not the types of games people would buy to play on their phone in the first place. Mobile gaming is already huge and I'd be surprised if developers had completely missed that. Maybe they have and there's a good chance we all will have to eat our words at some point, but I genuinely do think that you need to consider that hardware capability alone isn't what is holding these games back on phones, because they already have the capability to run games equivalent to a very successful and profitable gaming platform and yet we've not seen a lot of that.
Last edited:
Your whole post is devoid of units sold. See what I have work with? No wonder humbleness is front and center.
That isn't the point of conversation on triple A gaming on smartphones, tablets & Macs.
I am talking about accessibility, distribution networks and promotional push towards new customers.
Over 5 billion users have either iPhone or Android smartphones. Less than 130 million Switches have been shipped worldwide.
5 of 8 people alive today have a smartphone.
13 of 800 people alive today have a Switch.
Have a phone, payment card or cashless payment method & great wireless connectivity? You can buy any game.
For those users they'll need to add the expense of & inconvenience of buying additional hardware like the Switch when they already have a phone that can play a game.
Your line of thinking is applicable for traditional gaming hardware. User profiles that will always prioritize buying from traditional players and snubbing new platforms to triple A games like Apple & Google.
New users will likely NEVER consider buying a Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox or gaming PC as their gaming is up to 2 titles per console generation.
Why? Because it is a waste of time, money and space for them to buy just for 1-2 $60 titles.
Apple & Google put up money for it from highly skilled managers who likely went to better schools than most serious gamers.
To make my projections realistic to that 5 billion phone users I picked a very conservative 1% or 50 million handsets.
Anyone who can multiply $60 times 50 million can figure it is $3 billion.
Is $3 billion revenue, a FAILURE???
Does it really have to be at par with current gen consoles within 5 years? Is the added expense of a gaming PC or console + TV worth being at par?
They're after the market of new users who will likely buy 1-2 $60 games. The incumbent console brands have almost $0-60 10 titles attached per console.
See the market difference between the two?
It is akin to a home theater owner who watches more than 10 films a month encouraging anyone who'd watch 1-2 per year to buy a home theater.
You are using traditional arguments for traditional markets and applying it to new markets that partially aligns with traditional markets.
I know you are emotionally invested on your platform surviving the focus of multiple $ trillions companies.
Let us see what happens by Dec 2028. 🙃
Last edited:
It is fascinating how you missed the point so completely and just throwing the same set of figures around ad nauseam does not necessarily make your argument for you.
My point, to be clear, is that there is an incredibly successful gaming platform that is both a handheld and can be attached to a TV. Like a phone.
It is so massively underpowered by today's standards that a significant proportion of the 5 billion people you keep hammering on about probably already own a mobile device that is as capable as said console.
Even better, games on that platform sell for healthy prices and users are willing to pay them.
Now, as you say, if there is this big new market out there just waiting for games to arrive, we don't need to wait another five years before ray tracing and more RAM become the norm.
Developers could port some very successful games (that have been designed with handheld use in mind) to phones right now. Even more, they probably could have done so in the last couple of years and would have been able to reach enough customers able to play their game.
So why don't they? Why isn't this happening now? Why do we need to wait another few years to play the really high end games with RT and massive graphics. My phone could probably run the entire Switch catalogue if developers supported it. Why don't they? Are they just as narrow minded as you think we all are that they stick to 'traditional' platforms? Why is this about to change? Because Apple now supports RT?
Like I said, that market could exist right now. They could go after these new markets right now. Why don't they? There's "5 billion customers" out there in your argument. Why don't they?
It’s running on an iPhone screen. You think most would notice? For at least 7 years now Apple has been promoting how fast the iPhone processor is, and yet last year’s model can’t handle the first ever AAA game released for the platform in its 16 year history.
Good news, your wait won’t be long, I’ll go downstairs now and fire up the original. No remake needed. Wait, actually I’ll play the Wii version, which was the definitive version of the game. You can go back to your day. You’re welcome.
It bears repeating as you dont understand its importance & relevance to this thread.
You are trying to jam in gaming PC & consoles into a totally different subject matter.
Again, these new users are likely NEVER buying a Switch. Be aware that not all households or persons own a TV. TV purchases for non-gamers tend to occur & be prioritized when they settle down to have a family.
Before that computer, tablet and smartphone screens are more than sufficient for their needs.
The TV used to be the sole screen of anyone hence everyone wanting one. In the time of the Internet screens diversified.
What is a TV but a larger screen than a computer, tablet or smartphone?
If you aren't at home that often then that TV's idle asset for anyone who does not have family living with them. Very little utilization like gaming hardware.
Apple makes more revenue than all the major gaming companies combined.
As many pointed out these are casual games. They were not trying to enter the non-casual games market.
I am sure they are doing so now but this thread is about Apple actively participating in RE4.
Likely because Apple isn't actively participating in it? That's the complaint of many Mac gamers isnt it? Apple not providing seed money for a port?
Casual gaming brings in the revenue the easiest. So they focused on that rather than the more challenging non-casual gaming market.
When Apple was using PPC & Intel chips they did not waste their time on gaming Macs as the market for that is incompatible with their business model, tech, business process and general strengths. They allowed other players to dominate that could better serve the market.
Not to mention the margins were not Apple margins. They were more like Android margins.
Any smart business will go after the business that is easiest to get. As I pointed out earlier that would be casual gaming. Charging $0.99 games and eventually those in-store purchases were very easy ways to make any money. Why? Because what is $0.99 to anyone making $15/hr? What more to anyone making $150/hr?
Apple & Google waited to over 5 billion users because it appears that they have reached saturation or already saturated the casual gaming market.
What is their next market adjacent to it that they can leverage their App & Play Stores? Non-casual gaming that charges $60 per title.
Hence my pointing out that very conservative 1% of 5 billion that is 50 million new users.
Back in 2007 during the iPhone 2G launch Steve Jobs pointed to 1% of the nearly 1 billion units mobile phone market for their iPhone's year 1.
Just like that genius I pointed to 1% of the nearly 5 billion iPhone & Android users.
Apple has since then secured the top ~20% of the over 1.2 to 1.3 billion unit mobile phone market that compromises $429-1799 devices.
Last edited:
People are slamming Mortal Kombat 1 on the Switch.