Is ipads, smartphones hurting the big 3

Overheal

The consoles could start by updating their 2005/6 specs with something meatier. Just saying.

Retr0gamer

richymcdermott wrote: »

Shining force is 99c in the app store
Secret Of Mana 8.99
Final Fantasy 3 is 15.99

http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/222212/the-6-best-jrpgs-on-iphone-ipad/

theres some great jrpg on the store

They're all emulated roms, not games created from the ground up and none of them have great production values anyway, nothing close to the likes of Fallout 3 or Final Fantasy XIII or even a DS or PSP RPG.

Also there was an outcry from Apple users over the price of FFTactics on the iphone store. It's only 13 euros and is far better and will last longer than the vast majority of games on the store. People aren't willing to pay the prices that could sustain big budget development.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

A developer could potentially release a big budget game, sell it at $9.99, reach a massive audience and keep 70% of all revenue, though.

Triple-A is untested on iOS at the moment, but all signs point to it being a success. There is a perception that smartphone users are married to the 99c price point, but in actual fact developers have noticed sales have increased when they raised their price from 99c upwards. There are also plenty of (relatively) high price titles, like Infinity Blade, Football Manager and the Gameloft games, which consistently reach the very upper reaches of the charts, despite a higher price point.

Big publishers are being very conservative when it comes to bringing their triple-A IP to the App Store, but it would be fascinating to see them release a 'proper' entry in a big series, backed by the usual hype machine and marketing campaign.

It remains to be proven. However I think that consumers will demand more as the specs of the iphones will increase and demand it at unsustainable prices. The apple and android stores are so crowded that it's hard to get noticed and I feel something has got to give. It all feels too much like the dot com boom days and I think there'll be a crash and stabilisation of the market. Perhaps it won't be that drastic and it might be a slower process like the way there's no small developers on consoles anymore but I believe no matter how it happens, it will happen.

richymcdermott

No retr0 no.. Dont mention ff13 please...have mercy

gizmo

richymcdermott wrote: »

another interesting article

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/113986-Apple-Voted-Largest-Influence-On-Gaming-Industry

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/30/prweb9001622.DTL

I saw the first article earlier in the month alright and, to put it bluntly, it's full of ****. There is no way those replies came from "industry professionals" unless they're using the term for 1000 hobbyist iOS developers.

Overheal wrote: »

The consoles could start by updating their 2005/6 specs with something meatier. Just saying.

No, that would be an utterly terrible idea. We don't need a new console generation yet.

Look on the bright-side though Overheal, the longer the current generation exists, the longer you can boast about how superior the PC is while simultaneously ignoring the litany of amazing games this console generation has produced.

Overheal

oh not ignoring, just balking at their limitations and exclusivity deals. All but a handful of releases are DX9 for instance. Including Skyrim, which is impressive enough, but could have been that much nicer with access to DX10 and 11 libraries.

Azure_sky

I never play games on my phone. I have a 3DS/PSP for that. Good luck trying to play street fighter on a mobile.

hooradiation

gizmo wrote: »

Look on the bright-side though Overheal, the longer the current generation exists, the longer you can boast about how superior the PC is while simultaneously ignoring the litany of amazing games this console generation has produced.

thus proving that there isn't a single conversation topic that can't be turned into PC owners crying about how nobody loves them any more.

Retr0gamer

hooradiation wrote: »

thus proving that there isn't a single conversation topic that can't be turned into PC owners crying about how nobody loves them any more.

Did you have a traumatic experience with a PC gamer in your youth or something?

hooradiation

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Did you have a traumatic experience with a PC gamer in your youth or something?

Did you ever have a question to ask me that wasn't 48 shades of fucking stupid?

Alt Answer: I feel the constantly complaining, over entitled man children that typify PC owners deserve as much fucking scorn as I can heap upon them.

johnny_ultimate

Overheal wrote: »

oh not ignoring, just balking at their limitations and exclusivity deals. All but a handful of releases are DX9 for instance. Including Skyrim, which is impressive enough, but could have been that much nicer with access to DX10 and 11 libraries.

That's the thing though: I often find that PC gamers get more passionate about tech and DX10 than actually playing the game! Some games will always be better on PC for a myriad of technical and input reasons, and that's grand. But ignoring all the wonderful games out there just because they don't have keyboard / mouse or DX11 support just seems bizarre to me when so many unique, engaging titles are console only.

It's not like owning a 360 - going for, what, 200 dollars or so these days? - will detract from your ability to play Skyrim or Starcraft 2 on a PC if you so wish. But it will also give you the option to play Vanquish or Dark Souls or Disgaea or whatever - games that are every bit as 'hardcore' as anything on PC.

As for iOS? Excuse me while I grow further addicted to Jetpack Joyride.

Retr0gamer

It's nothing to do with ignoring games. You're playing PC games so you can have the best possible experience, of course you're going to have to be passionate about tech to do that. One of the best things about PC gaming is how open the system is and tinkering with it and building a machine that can run games as gorgeously as possible. For some that's as much fun as playing the games. Your not given much oppurtunity to do this when a PC from 5 years ago can run the latest directx 9 console port. And then there's when you get shafted by a half assed port with a myriad of technical problems. Sure there's some PC owners that will moan about silly things but a lot of it isn't baseless.

TBH if you are really into games and have the money you'd have a PC and console, it's how I've always had it.

I think the console gamers that look down on PC gamers are just as obnoxious as the worst PC gaming fanboy.

richymcdermott

I find pc gamers alot smarter than console gamers , they are under no influence by company demands or strict rules.
I did see pc gamers fixing games faster than companies release patches for either texture problems or crashes.
Im not a pc gamer but i dont need the best gaming experience possible to play games. Frames per second or ultra quality graphics doesnt bother me in the slightest.

johnny_ultimate

It's not looking down - its more like having a balanced diet. There are some games I'd rather play on PC, and some games that will for whatever reason only be worth playing on PC. I'd imagine a majority of gamers will switch between both PC and console.

But to write off all console gaming (and vice versa) just seems somewhat misguided to me. I personally don't really see how not having DX10 or 11 could anyway negatively impact your enjoyment of the game. Sure, the best tech possible is always nice, but its more an icing on the cake rather than a gamebreaker. The fundamental game is still there (albeit with every so slightly less pretty graphics), and always moddable if you're on PC.

Nothing wrong with having a preference - if you're only into RTS and FPS then by all means stick with PC. But to say 'that games looks great but its only on consoles so I can't play it' just seems bizarre to me, given the extremely low cost of entry to console gaming. If you can build a fancy gaming rig, surely you can afford a 360!

Retr0gamer

Well some people just have a preference for PC or consoles. However anyone that looks down on console or PC gaming is not worth getting into an argument with. I think some PC gamers are just sick of the lack of effort in and restrictive DRM some publishers have on the platform.

Dont be at yourself

With regard Angry Birds paving the way for more developers to sell millions of copies of their games, it really should be pointed out that Rovio are not really a small developer, at least not in the manner people are describing them. Angry Birds was their 52nd game in 6 years, had a team of at least 10 people working on it and cost over €100,000 to develop. That figure also ignores the fact that they already had their tech in place. Now, sure their success is monumental but this is only one in a sea of unknown, underwhelming and poor selling titles from not just themselves but other developers too.

The point is that they achieved success ahead of even Triple-A developers for an absolute fraction of the cost. Angry Birds is apparently the most knocked-off brand in China. It's massive. It has spawned a litany of top-selling games across any number of platforms, and they're expanding the brand into a movie and TV show. Fair enough, it's not the work of a 'bedroom coder', but Rovio were a tiny Java developer before the App Store catapulted them into being one of the most influential and biggest-selling dev teams in the world. Without it, they'd still be making Java games and nobody would know who they were.

Of course, success in the App Store is something of a crapshoot, but when the rewards are so spectacularly high and the barrier to entry so low, that dev teams small and large will continue to take it seriously.

Publishers will still be needed for marketing and funding - even Rovio used Chillingo to publish the initial release of Angry Birds.
Publishers (or developers) will still need to hand over 30% of their revenue to Apple, not to mention a further 25% of their profits if they were to use UDK or a similar third-party engine.
Games such as Infinity Blade could not be made by some guy coding in his sitting room.

Yes, there are universal costs that apply to game development, regardless of if it's for iOS or PS3/XB360. However, Apple's flat 30% margain and $99/year fee is chump change compared to fees of the current platform holders. The platform holders hold all the cards: they charge astronomically for their SDK and development tools, they charge for their test and debug kits, they charge for the media used to press the ROMs, they charge for the software to be submitted for compliance testing (and again for resubmission in case it fails), and they often load agreements so the developer takes the hit if the software doesn't shift units.

Sony said they'd have various pricing tiers on the platform which is an extremely clever move. You'll have the likes of Uncharted: Golden Abyss for those people who don't mind forking out £30 for the latest big release but you'll probably have Vita ports of mobile games at more sane prices. Microsoft are pushing their Xbox Live brand onto Windows Phone 7 as part of a drive to improve the feature set of the OS, I don't think it has much to do with this topic. Nintendo are probably like me, they keep hearing how great mobile devices are for gaming and then get confused when they can't find the d-pad and buttons on the device.

I agree about Vita pricing: it is a very clever move. It's also a move directly in response to the rise of smartphone gaming.

Nintendo are like you: looking for d-pads and buttons on the device. Just as how they've clung to traditional multi-player gaming and traditional ways of reaching the customer while the likes of Xbox Live, PSN and Steam galloped away into the distance. They are notoriously slow to respond to indutry trends - often willfully ignoring them - but it's surely only a matter of time before next Edge 10/10 isn't Mario or Zelda, but a touch- or voice-controlled App Store game.

As fun as Mario Kart 9 undoubtedly is, it's not a reflection of where the industry will be in 10 years.

As for the games you've mentioned, Infinity Blade is an exception due to the visuals it boasts. It's not really a great example when you take into consideration the work that would have gone into it, the people who were involved and the costs involved for developers who would need to licence Unreal and the tools required to utilise it properly.

Is it an exception, or a trailblazer? An abberation, or the vanguard of a new wave? There's a good interview with Chair on Gamasutra at the moment, and it underlines how large the return was compared to the initial outlay. It took 10 people six month, together with a UDK licence to deliver $10 million in profit after Apple's cut 6 months later. They may not be a shining light to the 'bedroom coder', but they certainly point the way for a lot of small independent developers trying their luck on XBLA.

With regard to Football Manager and Gameloft, they have the advantage of leveraging big licences to sell their games and as such, are able to command higher prices.

I accept your point about Football Manager, but many of the Gameloft titles are unlicensed knock-offs. But there are plenty of other examples. FireMint's Real Racing franchises and Capybara & Superbrothers with Sword & Sworcery have both found success at a premium pricepoint with new IP.

Overheal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

That's the thing though: I often find that PC gamers get more passionate about tech and DX10 than actually playing the game! Some games will always be better on PC for a myriad of technical and input reasons, and that's grand. But ignoring all the wonderful games out there just because they don't have keyboard / mouse or DX11 support just seems bizarre to me when so many unique, engaging titles are console only.

It's not like owning a 360 - going for, what, 200 dollars or so these days? - will detract from your ability to play Skyrim or Starcraft 2 on a PC if you so wish. But it will also give you the option to play Vanquish or Dark Souls or Disgaea or whatever - games that are every bit as 'hardcore' as anything on PC.

As for iOS? Excuse me while I grow further addicted to Jetpack Joyride.

And see, that's my major hangup: You can buy a new PC off the shelf and anything that has a SandyBridge i3 or better has about as much Gaming power as an XBOX 360. If not more. Nevermind when you actually buy a GPU, then you are looking at severalfold more power. And Windows supports the controller. Basically: There's no reason for the exclusivity. Nevermind the actual tech specs except to say that there is much of no reason for console games to be exclusives except for the pure sake of twisting someone's arm to plop money on an obsolete piece of hardware.

It's not a PC vs. Console thing except that I'm getting real tired of the artificial segregation. Hell I'm not even saying the thing is priced unfairly (you can grab the guts for $150), just that if I already have hardware that will do the same thing or better I fail to justify re-buying it.

K.O.Kiki

One day, I hope a smartphone can give me the tactile feedback of a REAL D-PAD.

VinLieger

No, simply because they are targeting 2 completely different markets, I and im guessing others on here would happily sit down to play Skyrim for several hours at a time and not get bored, i cant say the same for a single mobile game. This is to do with graphics gameplay and immersiveness, and skyrim doesnt even have online play which very few mobile games have been able to get right as of yet.
Possibly in the future if the big 2 and their used to be cool small and annoying cousin completely stuff up the next consoles then yeah mobile gaming could take over but its gonna be a while yet

Overheal

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

One day, I hope a smartphone can give me the tactile feedback of a REAL D-PAD.

actually working on that.

plus, some covers already overlay the screen with a transparent pad-shaped gel insert.

gizmo

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

The point is that they achieved success ahead of even Triple-A developers for an absolute fraction of the cost. Angry Birds is apparently the most knocked-off brand in China. It's massive. It has spawned a litany of top-selling games across any number of platforms, and they're expanding the brand into a movie and TV show. Fair enough, it's not the work of a 'bedroom coder', but Rovio were a tiny Java developer before the App Store catapulted them into being one of the most influential and biggest-selling dev teams in the world. Without it, they'd still be making Java games and nobody would know who they were.

Of course, success in the App Store is something of a crapshoot, but when the rewards are so spectacularly high and the barrier to entry so low, that dev teams small and large will continue to take it seriously.

As I said, I'm not knocking their success, merely outlining why they're a poor example to use as the little guys in the mobile space when they had the experience, expertise and funding all ready in place before Angry Birds became a hit.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

Yes, there are universal costs that apply to game development, regardless of if it's for iOS or PS3/XB360. However, Apple's flat 30% margain and $99/year fee is chump change compared to fees of the current platform holders. The platform holders hold all the cards: they charge astronomically for their SDK and development tools, they charge for their test and debug kits, they charge for the media used to press the ROMs, they charge for the software to be submitted for compliance testing (and again for resubmission in case it fails), and they often load agreements so the developer takes the hit if the software doesn't shift units.

I think we're talking about different things here. If Apple were to enter the home console market, in order to take on the big three they would need to aim for AAA standard games. If you want AAA standards then you're talking a considerably higher investment than the annual $99 development licence. If you were to only consider mobile standard apps on their hypothetical home platform then they of course wouldn't apply however they'd be aiming for an entirely different demographic in this case.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

Nintendo are like you: looking for d-pads and buttons on the device. Just as how they've clung to traditional multi-player gaming and traditional ways of reaching the customer while the likes of Xbox Live, PSN and Steam galloped away into the distance. They are notoriously slow to respond to indutry trends - often willfully ignoring them - but it's surely only a matter of time before next Edge 10/10 isn't Mario or Zelda, but a touch- or voice-controlled App Store game.

You talk about those control schemes like they're a bad thing. While there are games that most certainly do work well with touch screens, I don't really see them transitioning into the realm of AAA, especially while on mobile devices. This may change as tablets become more prevalent but again I think you're still limited in the types of genres you can work with on such a platform.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

Is it an exception, or a trailblazer? An abberation, or the vanguard of a new wave? There's a good interview with Chair on Gamasutra at the moment, and it underlines how large the return was compared to the initial outlay. It took 10 people six month, together with a UDK licence to deliver $10 million in profit after Apple's cut 6 months later. They may not be a shining light to the 'bedroom coder', but they certainly point the way for a lot of small independent developers trying their luck on XBLA.

It took 10 industry professionals with prior experience in UE3, the appropriate resources and the direct help of Epic, 6 months to make the game. There's a couple of very important caveats there, ones which are shown to be even more relevant when you consider that UDK with iOS support has been out a year this month and we have still yet to see any other major successes being powered by it. It is because of this that I regard them as an exception.

Overheal wrote: »

And see, that's my major hangup: You can buy a new PC off the shelf and anything that has a SandyBridge i3 or better has about as much Gaming power as an XBOX 360. If not more. Nevermind when you actually buy a GPU, then you are looking at severalfold more power. And Windows supports the controller. Basically: There's no reason for the exclusivity. Nevermind the actual tech specs except to say that there is much of no reason for console games to be exclusives except for the pure sake of twisting someone's arm to plop money on an obsolete piece of hardware.

I don't really want to get into this as I made the original comment totally in jest and we've discussed it before but I'll just say one thing. There is one primary reason why there aren't as many PC ports these days. Money. Simple as. The sales of multiplatform games on the PC in most cases simply don't justify the costs that go into making a PC version. If it did then they'd do it. I mean, why wouldn't they?

Dont be at yourself

gizmo wrote: »

As I said, I'm not knocking their success, merely outlining why they're a poor example to use as the little guys in the mobile space when they had the experience, expertise and funding all ready in place before Angry Birds became a hit.

But they were the little guys. Before Angry Birds, they were developing Java games for mobile phones. There are literally hundreds of tiny studios in a similar position to Rovio were back then, for whom the market access and low barrier of entry that the App Store provides is a godsend.

I think we're talking about different things here. If Apple were to enter the home console market, in order to take on the big three they would need to aim for AAA standard games. If you want AAA standards then you're talking a considerably higher investment than the annual $99 development licence. If you were to only consider mobile standard apps on their hypothetical home platform then they of course wouldn't apply however they'd be aiming for an entirely different demographic in this case.

The point still stands. If, hypothetically, Apple release an iDevice for the living room, without the additional platform fees and terms that are imposed by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, then we should see the platform supported by developers large and small. Of course making a triple-A game will still cost a fortune, but it won't cost as much, nor be as big a financial risk, compared to developing the same game on a traditional platform. Just as small studios are making iPhone and iPad games over DSiWare and PSP Minis.

You talk about those control schemes like they're a bad thing. While there are games that most certainly do work well with touch screens, I don't really see them transitioning into the realm of AAA, especially while on mobile devices. This may change as tablets become more prevalent but again I think you're still limited in the types of genres you can work with on such a platform.

I agree with you completely. As it stands, I don't want to jump around in front of Kinect or shake a Wii remote. I'm quite at home lying on the couch playing on a regular control pad on my PS3 or Xbox360. But technology moves on, and game design follows closely behind. For years, the consensus was that a console shooter would never work: now it's home to the biggest franchises in all of entertainment. Developers inevitably will fall down trying to apply touch controls to existing game designs (just as they have when they've tried to apply motion controls to existing game designs), but game designs will adapt to the new hardware. When game designers really get to grips with the advantages and disadvantages of touch, voice and motion controls, we will see truly compelling gameplay experiences. The technology itself isn't the problem; it's that our creativity hasn't quite caught up yet.

It took 10 industry professionals with prior experience in UE3, the appropriate resources and the direct help of Epic, 6 months to make the game. There's a couple of very important caveats there, ones which are shown to be even more relevant when you consider that UDK with iOS support has been out a year this month and we have still yet to see any other major successes being powered by it. It is because of this that I regard them as an exception.

I take your point that Chair enjoyed certain advantages, being an internal Epic studio and showcase for Unreal on iOS. However, it's clear from their own comments that they see iOS development as a major boon. They've worked on big XBLA titles - spending 2 years developing Shadow Complex, again with Epic's assistance - so they are certainly speaking with an informed opinion.

There are a number of Unreal-engined iOS games in the pipeline too (NOVA3, notably), but it's not like UDK is the only show in town, either. The Unity engine has enjoyed enormous success on the platform.

gizmo

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

But they [/i]were the little guys. Before Angry Birds, they were developing Java games for mobile phones. There are literally hundreds of tiny studios in a similar position to Rovio were back then, for whom the market access and low barrier of entry that the App Store provides is a godsend.

I don't mean in terms of size though. They already had 51 games under their belt, J2ME or otherwise. They knew what worked and what didn't, had time to develop their tech and had the necessary connections to get their game out there. Very few studios are in that position which was the point I was making.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

The point still stands. If, hypothetically, Apple release an iDevice for the living room, without the additional platform fees and terms that are imposed by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, then we should see the platform supported by developers large and small. Of course making a triple-A game will still cost a fortune, but it won't cost as much, nor be as big a financial risk, compared to developing the same game on a traditional platform. Just as small studios are making iPhone and iPad games over DSiWare and PSP Minis.

Again I disagree, those costs are there for a reason and if Apple were to play in the same league as the big three they would have to bring many of them in. I mean, for instance, would you really fork out £40 for a game that hasn't been through a proper QA and cert process? I know I sure as hell wouldn't.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

I agree with you completely. As it stands, I don't want to jump around in front of Kinect or shake a Wii remote. I'm quite at home lying on the couch playing on a regular control pad on my PS3 or Xbox360. But technology moves on, and game design follows closely behind. For years, the consensus was that a console shooter would never work: now it's home to the biggest franchises in all of entertainment. Developers inevitably will fall down trying to apply touch controls to existing game designs (just as they have when they've tried to apply motion controls to existing game designs), but game designs will adapt to the new hardware. When game designers really get to grips with the advantages and disadvantages of touch, voice and motion controls, we will see truly compelling gameplay experiences. The technology itself isn't the problem; it's that our creativity hasn't quite caught up yet.

Agree 100% with this. My only issue is that I don't see this catchup happening anytime soon, especially in the context of the hardware to use it on.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

I take your point that Chair enjoyed certain advantages, being an internal Epic studio and showcase for Unreal on iOS. However, it's clear from their own comments that they see iOS development as a major boon. They've worked on big XBLA titles - spending 2 years developing Shadow Complex, again with Epic's assistance - so they are certainly speaking with an informed opinion.

Oh I don't doubt it, I just see their success as unique in the present climate. In time I'm sure other experienced developers will follow a similar route but that leads me to my next point. If this happens we're going to see something akin to a tech arms race on the platform which will drive up development costs, force an increase in prices beyond the current "premium" on the App Store, drive the casual consumer base away, now appeal to the demographic that don't mind spending more than a tenner on a game and then find that said demographic are too busy playing something on Steam or their consoles.

Dont be at yourself wrote: »

There are a number of Unreal-engined iOS games in the pipeline too (NOVA3, notably), but it's not like UDK is the only show in town, either. The Unity engine has enjoyed enormous success on the platform.

Indeed, I'm actually using Unity on a project myself at home and can attest to its ease of use. However, if you are to look at the Unity powered iOS games available now you'll probably see what I was talking about above again. The vast majority aren't really using the engine to its full capabilities because doing so requires far more effort than simply using it as a foundation to build simpler games with. I also wonder do many people even recognise many of the games there? Or, to be more precise, even with such an engine powering them, have they seen commercial success?

richymcdermott

Best form of advertisement is and always be is word of mouth , imo is better than big companies forking out millions for adverts .
Great points from above ...gotta love threads like these :pac:

K.O.Kiki

Also, and I'm not sure how to put this nicely...

but FÚCK Angry Birds.

Mr.Saturn

What's wrong with Angry Birds?

jaykhunter

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Also, and I'm not sure how to put this nicely...

but FÚCK Angry Birds.

can we call to have it classified as an "app" rather than a game or videogame. Or have a catch-all term for these, like "flash game" etc? god we're snobs lol

Varik

jaykhunter wrote: »

can we call to have it classified as an "app" rather than a game or videogame. Or have a catch-all term for these, like "flash game" etc? god we're snobs lol

Stop that now, flash has no place on ios.

Retr0gamer

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

What's wrong with Angry Birds?

It's a **** game based on blind luck rather than any sort of skill and the idea was entirely stolen from other developers. It's also got artificial difficulty spikes to force the player to part with cash to get past particular levels which is what I find most hateful.

Optimalprimerib

Very good topic, it's an awful shame it has turned into a console vs PC war.

It certainly will kill off the portable consoles. These are games that are built for simplicity, ease of access and most importantly, cheap.

Since I got my iPhone, the ds is collecting dust. My €1000 PC barely gets turned on as I do my internetting on this, and I tried but hate PC gaming. Decking steam

jaykhunter

does that mean you stopped playing consoles altogether?

I wonder how much of a chunk IOS and smartphone devices will take out of the 3DS and Vita's successors. Will simply staying the course only hurt them.

Off topic, but how is Sony's Xperia Play doing? A foray of handheld consoles into phones is interesting.