4 ms·

The problem is that most game developers are probably not writing SpriteKit/SceneKit games in Swift, but rather using Unity or some other kind of portable engin

The problem is that most game developers are probably not writing SpriteKit/SceneKit games in Swift, but rather using Unity or some other kind of portable engine. Now they all have to wait for their toolchain to catch up with Apple's app thinning mechanisms. After the complete failure of MFi controllers on iOS 7+, I hoped that Apple would make life easier for game developers, not harder. Now we have a 200 MB app limit plus the requirement that games have to work with the default remote.

simonh 11y ago
My own take in MFi controllers is that they were always intended to primarily be used with the new Apple TV. Supporting them early was just a Trojan Horse to get them in the stores in advance of the TV launch. The alternative to requiring thinning is to allow fat app downloads and pretty much guarantee that app thinning stays a niche capability with low adoption, so Apple is making sure devs and their tools vendors just have to suck it up. It also means developers of apps that can conceivably fit inside the 200mb limit will work their buts off to make sure it does, which will tend to improve download speeds. Both effects will lead to a better user experience at the cost of some developer inconvenience, but frankly they're not asking anything unreasonable. Apple provide support for app thinning in their own frameworks, and if devs still freely choose to use different tools then that's up to them but a professional tool or framework that doesn't support thin apps in this era isn't worthy of the name.
- gurkendoktor 11y ago
  > My own take in MFi controllers is that they were always intended to primarily be used with the new Apple TV. Then Apple shouldn't have allowed Lightning-connected game controllers. I bought one for development purposes when their price dropped from $99 to "let's clear this shelf" ($15 in my case), and not only can I not use it with an Apple TV, it's also a terrible controller, on par with a $10 USB gamepad. I agree that tvOS was probably the driving force behind MFi controller support, but I also think it was a complete failure. (Sadly!)
omarforgotpwd 11y ago
The on demand resources allow the OS to efficiently store only the resources that are needed. As you play through a game with 100 levels, the system can delete assets from earlier levels to make room for new assets for later levels. Effectively this makes it less likely that a user will delete your game as storage fills up. More work, but ultimately good for game developers on the platform.
- gurkendoktor 11y ago
  Yes, the existence of on-demand resources is a good thing for game developers. No doubt about that! But forcing developers to use them after 200 MB is a hindrance, no matter which way you slice it.

simonh 11y ago

My own take in MFi controllers is that they were always intended to primarily be used with the new Apple TV. Supporting them early was just a Trojan Horse to get them in the stores in advance of the TV launch. The alternative to requiring thinning is to allow fat app downloads and pretty much guarantee that app thinning stays a niche capability with low adoption, so Apple is making sure devs and their tools vendors just have to suck it up. It also means developers of apps that can conceivably fit inside the 200mb limit will work their buts off to make sure it does, which will tend to improve download speeds. Both effects will lead to a better user experience at the cost of some developer inconvenience, but frankly they're not asking anything unreasonable. Apple provide support for app thinning in their own frameworks, and if devs still freely choose to use different tools then that's up to them but a professional tool or framework that doesn't support thin apps in this era isn't worthy of the name.

gurkendoktor 11y ago
> My own take in MFi controllers is that they were always intended to primarily be used with the new Apple TV. Then Apple shouldn't have allowed Lightning-connected game controllers. I bought one for development purposes when their price dropped from $99 to "let's clear this shelf" ($15 in my case), and not only can I not use it with an Apple TV, it's also a terrible controller, on par with a $10 USB gamepad. I agree that tvOS was probably the driving force behind MFi controller support, but I also think it was a complete failure. (Sadly!)

omarforgotpwd 11y ago

The on demand resources allow the OS to efficiently store only the resources that are needed. As you play through a game with 100 levels, the system can delete assets from earlier levels to make room for new assets for later levels. Effectively this makes it less likely that a user will delete your game as storage fills up. More work, but ultimately good for game developers on the platform.

gurkendoktor 11y ago
Yes, the existence of on-demand resources is a good thing for game developers. No doubt about that! But forcing developers to use them after 200 MB is a hindrance, no matter which way you slice it.