If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Uproxx)   Five reasons why the next generation of game consoles will likely fail. This is not a repeat from 1984, 1989, 1994, 2000 or 2006   (uproxx.com) divider line 197
    More: Obvious, system console, God Only Knows  
•       •       •

6232 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Jul 2012 at 10:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-31 09:56:25 AM
....because Computer gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a small, vocal, nerdy segment of gamers?
 
2012-07-31 10:10:19 AM
Because there will no longer be any consoles with a reasonable cost-to-develop, forcing game makers to rely entirely on the handheld systems to fund their unprofitable yet big-name console efforts.

Next?
 
kab
2012-07-31 10:13:44 AM
"Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked. The future consumer is just not going to accept that"

No, they aren't, and yes, they will. The rest of the points have little if anything to do with consoles specifically.
 
2012-07-31 10:16:59 AM
Companies are killing their own gaming divisions due to greed, and poor planning.

I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?! I don't see myself buying any of the next-gen consoles, and that makes me sad.
 
2012-07-31 10:17:41 AM
That was... just a random, mixed bag of complaints.
 
2012-07-31 10:20:20 AM
What a shiat article. Kickstarter will be why new consoles suck? This had to be the product of the unfortunate mix of a hangover and a deadline.
 
2012-07-31 10:21:44 AM
Not gonna lie, this generation really killed consoles for me. I buy consoles for Japanese games, and those have been in short supply. However, at least I still have Tales of Xillia and The Last Guardian (maybe) to look forward to.
 
2012-07-31 10:22:51 AM

Psylence: I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?!


That you're likely 40+ years old with shifting priorities might have something to do with it as well.

/right there with ya
 
2012-07-31 10:23:10 AM
PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.
 
2012-07-31 10:24:58 AM

FirstNationalBastard: ....because Computer gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a small, vocal, nerdy segment of gamers?


No, because console gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a slightly-larger, equally-vocal, equally-nerdy segment of gamers.
 
2012-07-31 10:26:46 AM

kab: "Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked. The future consumer is just not going to accept that"

No, they aren't, and yes, they will. The rest of the points have little if anything to do with consoles specifically.


Yeah, this is a factually incorrect statement in nearly every facet. Take the PS3, for instance. This is a single use device? It plays games, cruises the net, plays DVDs and Blu-ray, streams movies, plays music, all all sorts of other stuff. And they're not expensive, compared to desktops or laptops capable of running modern games ($300ish). And the creators of consoles are fighting to stretch uses with every releases. Are they lower end hardware than a modern system - absolutely. That's why they're cheaper. But to say that the next gen of console gaming is going to be terrible and end is just silly.
 
2012-07-31 10:30:33 AM
Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

Companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft will hold onto their consoles, but we'll see less games with 100 million dollar production budgets for these devices since the cost/benefit of sinking that much lucre into a title won't be able to compete with the profit margin on mobile gaming apps.

As for PC gaming... we're in a bit of a renassance right now and I think it'll only get better. We're getting to the point that the tools used to create games have gotten so advanced that you don't need 100 people to put together a competitive title anymore. Pretty soon it'll come full circle again and some future hundred million dollar game will be developed by some guy in his moms basement - just like the first one was.
 
2012-07-31 10:32:15 AM

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.


Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.
 
2012-07-31 10:35:04 AM
ehh, so be it. I'm in my 30's and have a PS3. Takes me months to find the time to get through a game any more. If they never make another console, it will still take me the rest of my life to fully exhaust all of the titles currently available. Hell, I still pick occasional PS2 games I never got around to buying back in the day.
 
2012-07-31 10:35:51 AM

kab: "Consoles are expensive single use devices


How in the hell could anyone, no matter what bone they have to pick, state that with a straight face?

First off they aren't even expensive anymore. A couple hundred bucks? Big deal. How many people spend that every other year on a new cell phone.

Second, 'single use devices?' That's so far from accurate I don't even know where to begin.
 
2012-07-31 10:36:06 AM

Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.


Remember when games were gonna be cheaper since they were on CD/DVD instead of cartridges with expensive memory chips?
 
2012-07-31 10:36:18 AM

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.


I don't know what kind of games you enjoy, obviously, but I think it's fair to say that the PS3 has some fantastic exclusives. Just looking through my list of played games I find: MGS4, Demon's Souls, Yakuza 4, 3D Dot Game Heroes, the Uncharted series, Heavy Rain, Warhawk, God of War III, and a few others, and that's not even getting to the non-exclusives that are nevertheless not on PC (or not well ported to PC).

As far as the price goes, if you're paying full retail for console games, especially in the last year, you're doing something wrong. Within a few months, most new releases are being cut (perhaps just temporarily) to $40, which will probably end up being the standard price for the rest of the generation.

PS4/XBox3 games will be $60-70 initially for sure.

Game prices are weird. On the one hand, SNES games were MORE expensive (even in terms of sticker price, I remember saving to pay ~$80 for a game once), and on the other hand you have to consider inflation. $50 in the mid 1990s (when PSX came out) is (@ 3%) about $80 today.
 
2012-07-31 10:37:12 AM

the opposite of charity is justice:
That you're likely 40+ years old with shifting priorities might have something to do with it as well.

/right there with ya


When I was younger I had time and no money, so I only had games that I received for Xmas/birthday and I played the crap out of them. I could get through Contra without using a code or continue.

Now I have money and no time. I have games that I haven't unwrapped. I still haven't beaten the ocean stage of Contra 4 and have owned the game for several years.
 
2012-07-31 10:37:49 AM
Eh, not that worried about it. I'm a cheap bastard that hasn't had much time to play lately. So I'm always a generation or two behind in consoles. Whatever happens, I've still got an extra decade or so of gaming, even if they die off tomorrow.

/still plays N64
 
2012-07-31 10:38:18 AM

Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.


Actually, it's easier to make games now than it was 10 years ago - not harder.

Budgets have definately gone up, but they've gone up on things like cinematics, production values (music, art direction) and advertising.

They treat games like mini-movies these days. That's where the cost is going - not ICT/developers.

/developer
//okay actually, senior manager of developers and testers... but i still code dammit
 
2012-07-31 10:39:20 AM

TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.


I see the numbers argument, but I don't think it holds up over time, particularly given people's preferences. No matter the margins, "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions. No matter the margins or profitability, I don't see Fruit Ninja and Farmville replacing Call of Duty long term. However, it likely is opening up a very new lucrative sub-market of its own.
 
2012-07-31 10:39:49 AM

Psylence: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Remember when games were gonna be cheaper since they were on CD/DVD instead of cartridges with expensive memory chips?


They ARE cheaper.

Helpful chart

That link gives retail prices of $70 for Final Fantasy II, and $75 for Super Street Fighter II (both SNES). Those are on the high end, but you never see retail prices for current new releases that high (some $70 releases in 2009-2010), and that's BEFORE correcting for inflation.
 
2012-07-31 10:40:42 AM
 
2012-07-31 10:40:47 AM

TheAlgebraist: Game prices are weird. On the one hand, SNES games were MORE expensive (even in terms of sticker price, I remember saving to pay ~$80 for a game once), and on the other hand you have to consider inflation. $50 in the mid 1990s (when PSX came out) is (@ 3%) about $80 today.


Game prices are easy to understand - the reason why they have remained mostly stagnant is because they cost next to nothing to manufacture copies of and the volumes being shipped/sold has risen dramatically.

I guarentee you that even if the profit margin has gone down (and it wouldn't have done so very much on expensive rom based cartriges vs, say, dvd games) the volume has gone up by a factor of 1000% or more.
 
2012-07-31 10:41:00 AM

TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

Companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft will hold onto their consoles, but we'll see less games with 100 million dollar production budgets for these devices since the cost/benefit of sinking that much lucre into a title won't be able to compete with the profit margin on mobile gaming apps.

As for PC gaming... we're in a bit of a renassance right now and I think it'll only get better. We're getting to the point that the tools used to create games have gotten so advanced that you don't need 100 people to put together a competitive title anymore. Pretty soon it'll come full circle again and some future hundred million dollar game will be developed by some guy in his moms basement - just like the first one was.


Maybe it is just me, but "gaming" on a tablet or smart phone sucks donkey balls.
 
2012-07-31 10:42:37 AM

Psylence: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Remember when games were gonna be cheaper since they were on CD/DVD instead of cartridges with expensive memory chips?


Yes, but the physical production was always a minimal cost in video games (since the SNES days, at least). Development costs were and are much higher by many multiples (please correct me if I'm wrong here). I wouldn't expect that to be a large driver in cost. A few percentage points, maybe.
 
2012-07-31 10:43:15 AM

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.


Why would you buy a game new at full price? Wait a month or less now and the prices start dropping. Christ I bought Assassin's Creed: Revelations for $9.99 new off the shelf at Best Buy.
 
2012-07-31 10:43:43 AM

Khellendros: TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

I see the numbers argument, but I don't think it holds up over time, particularly given people's preferences. No matter the margins, "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions. No matter the margins or profitability, I don't see Fruit Ninja and Farmville replacing Call of Duty long term. However, it likely is opening up a very new lucrative sub-market of its own.


Flight sims used to be the most popular (and lucrative) gaming genre.

Yes, Flight Sims.

So don't go thinking that FPS's are some sort of sacred cow. Something more popular will come along and the big publishers will chase after those dollars and sideline your favorite genre.

I'm not saying you're a kid or anything like that (I don't honestly know), but I do understand that it's difficult for people to understand how these vast sea changes can happen without having lived through one (or two).

/flight sims?!?!
 
2012-07-31 10:45:35 AM

Psylence: Companies are killing their own gaming divisions due to greed, and poor planning.

I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?! I don't see myself buying any of the next-gen consoles, and that makes me sad.


Same. I have been a gamer since way back. The only reason I know anything about networking and computers is because I wanted to play Command & Conquer multiplayer with my dad. I had to figure out how switches worked and also how to upgrade RAM and everything else. I used to buy a new video game with every paycheck, back when I lived with my folks and had no bills or worries in life.

Anymore, though, I don't really buy anything. I spent the last six months or so playing Tribes: Ascend simply because it's a decent game that's free to play. The last game I bought was Arma II, and I only bought that because of DayZ. Now it's the only thing I play.

This is the first year I haven't bought anything on the Steam Summer Sale. There's just nothing worth buying.
 
2012-07-31 10:45:59 AM

TwistedFark: TheAlgebraist: Game prices are weird. On the one hand, SNES games were MORE expensive (even in terms of sticker price, I remember saving to pay ~$80 for a game once), and on the other hand you have to consider inflation. $50 in the mid 1990s (when PSX came out) is (@ 3%) about $80 today.

Game prices are easy to understand - the reason why they have remained mostly stagnant is because they cost next to nothing to manufacture copies of and the volumes being shipped/sold has risen dramatically.

I guarentee you that even if the profit margin has gone down (and it wouldn't have done so very much on expensive rom based cartriges vs, say, dvd games) the volume has gone up by a factor of 1000% or more.


You're right, I shouldn't have said 'weird'.
 
2012-07-31 10:46:06 AM

Khellendros: Yes, but the physical production was always a minimal cost in video games (since the SNES days, at least). Development costs were and are much higher by many multiples (please correct me if I'm wrong here). I wouldn't expect that to be a large driver in cost. A few percentage points, maybe.


Old ROM cartridges were actuallyrediculously expensive to produce. A 50 dollar game cartridge back in 1996 would have been about 15 dollars of manufacturing/packaging and shipping and gone wholesale for maximum 30 dollars. Today it costs less than two bucks to manufacture/package/ship a DVD based game.
 
2012-07-31 10:48:38 AM

Psylence: Companies are killing their own gaming divisions due to greed, and poor planning.

I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?! I don't see myself buying any of the next-gen consoles, and that makes me sad.


I started playing games with in the Commodore 64 and Coleco-vision era....I doubt I will buy a new game console either although I don't blame the industry so much as I've just played such an abundance of games over my life that I've become jaded and difficult to impress. Everything I play now feels derivative.
 
2012-07-31 10:49:35 AM
Hey, guess what, people like to play games. They like to game on computers, on consoles, on portable game devices, on phones, on wrist watches, on calculators, on televisions, on dvd menus, with cards, and boards, with little miniatures. They'll pay money to do it, lots of money.

Consoles aren't going anywhere. Phones aren't eating up the market. This last generation sold more consoles than ever, and more games than ever. Next generation, starting with the Wii U, they will sell even more than that.
 
2012-07-31 10:49:42 AM
The big money in gaming is on the internet. Videogames are going to go through the same change that record stores went through after itunes.

There will be game consoles, but they're going to be like the a cd-player when everyone has mp3 players.
 
kab
2012-07-31 10:51:10 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Maybe it is just me, but "gaming" on a tablet or smart phone sucks donkey balls.


It's not just you.
 
2012-07-31 10:51:13 AM

TwistedFark: /flight sims?!?!


What, you don't remember computer gaming in the mid-late 80s?

It was all about the simulations. Flight sims, driving sims, naval combat sims, etc. Hell, I still miss those days. Nowadays it's all FPS with an emphasis on online play or RPGs. Not that those can't be fun, but gaming genres can be very flavor of the decade. Heck, with the consoles of the 90s it was mostly about platformers. Nowadays we call platform games "casual games" with things like Temple Run occupying eight year olds on mommy's smartphone.

You're right that stuff comes and goes, but hey, those flight sims of the 80s were great fun. I can't tell you how many hours I spent playing Gunship.
 
2012-07-31 10:53:02 AM
If you want to read an article worth a shiat, I called this nearly a year ago. Not that consoles would "fail", but that consoles are in decline, and anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is in for a rude awakening.
 
2012-07-31 10:53:34 AM
Reasons #1-5:

Game companies keep expecting to make a bigger profit than the year before, inspiring unsustainable behavior, and the closed nature of consoles prevents any other behaviors from offering competition.
 
2012-07-31 10:55:09 AM

akula: Nowadays we call platform games "casual games" with things like Temple Run occupying eight year olds on mommy's smartphone.


Actually, people call those platformers "casual games" because the idea of automating velocity in a genre built around player inertia is possibly the most fail-tastic design "innovation" of the last five years.
 
2012-07-31 10:59:08 AM

natmar_76: Consoles aren't going anywhere. Phones aren't eating up the market. This last generation sold more consoles than ever, and more games than ever. Next generation, starting with the Wii U, they will sell even more than that.


No, they won't. This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now. Gamers like you and me, we were always a niche. We let ourselves become convinced otherwise, thanks to media coverage and this awesome community we've built on the internet, but we always were.
 
2012-07-31 10:59:16 AM

sprawl15: Reasons #1-5:

Game companies keep expecting to make a bigger profit than the year before, inspiring unsustainable behavior, and the closed nature of consoles prevents any other behaviors from offering competition.



That and there's not as many "gamers" as middle aged women who will put down a few dollars or watch advertising to play Angry Birds. Huge profit margins and less overhead than the increasingly movie-studio-like big game companies.
 
2012-07-31 11:00:12 AM

akula: TwistedFark: /flight sims?!?!

What, you don't remember computer gaming in the mid-late 80s?

It was all about the simulations. Flight sims, driving sims, naval combat sims, etc. Hell, I still miss those days. Nowadays it's all FPS with an emphasis on online play or RPGs. Not that those can't be fun, but gaming genres can be very flavor of the decade. Heck, with the consoles of the 90s it was mostly about platformers. Nowadays we call platform games "casual games" with things like Temple Run occupying eight year olds on mommy's smartphone.

You're right that stuff comes and goes, but hey, those flight sims of the 80s were great fun. I can't tell you how many hours I spent playing Gunship.


Yeah I would like to see a real good submarine sim. I loved playing Silent Service on the SNES
 
2012-07-31 11:00:29 AM

TwistedFark: Khellendros: TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

I see the numbers argument, but I don't think it holds up over time, particularly given people's preferences. No matter the margins, "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions. No matter the margins or profitability, I don't see Fruit Ninja and Farmville replacing Call of Duty long term. However, it likely is opening up a very new lucrative sub-market of its own.

Flight sims used to be the most popular (and lucrative) gaming genre.

Yes, Flight Sims.

So don't go thinking that FPS's are some sort of sacred cow. Something more popular will come along and the big publishers will chase after those dollars and sideline your favorite genre.

I'm not saying you're a kid or anything like that (I don't honestly know), but I do understand that it's difficult for people to understand how these vast sea changes can happen without having lived through one (or two).

/flight sims?!?!


I'm not talking about genres, I'm talking about gaming at the level of minor apps on phones and mobile devices vs. large scale productions that currently exist on consoles and most PCs. I don't think the small scale gaming environment (the Farmvilles of the world) will replace the "large scale" gaming (such as Call of Duty, Final Fantasy, etc), no matter the difference in profit margins. The demand for those games is too high, and the experience isn't really comparable. They don't fill the same entertainment niche. You contended that console gaming is dying and being replaced by app gaming. While I think there is a new market emerging, I don't think it will "take down" larger scale productions, as they are in too high demand.

And no, I'm certainly not a kid.
 
2012-07-31 11:00:52 AM

natmar_76: Hey, guess what, people like to play games. They like to game on computers, on consoles, on portable game devices, on phones, on wrist watches, on calculators, on televisions, on dvd menus, with cards, and boards, with little miniatures. They'll pay money to do it, lots of money.

Consoles aren't going anywhere. Phones aren't eating up the market. This last generation sold more consoles than ever, and more games than ever. Next generation, starting with the Wii U, they will sell even more than that.


Sony partnering with HTC for mobile gaming
EA corners market in iPhone4 gaming
Activision creating 3rd party mobile gaming publishing arm
Microsoft talking about integrating Windows Live with Windows Phone as their gaming strategy at E3

You're probably right about Nintendo - they're putting all their money on the DS. But they're also taking a beating and heavy criticism for it as well.

Btw, great article here that pretty much echos what I am saying and the direction that the market is going in.
 
2012-07-31 11:02:03 AM

groppet: Yeah I would like to see a real good submarine sim. I loved playing Silent Service on the SNES


Yeah, some new ones are definitely called for, but I don't see them happening anytime soon. Somebody recommended Dangerous Waters to me not long ago... it's available on Steam if you're willing to go for stuff that's a few years old.

688 Attack Sub was some fun times too.
 
2012-07-31 11:02:34 AM

HeartBurnKid: No, they won't. This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now. Gamers like you and me, we were always a niche. We let ourselves become convinced otherwise, thanks to media coverage and this awesome community we've built on the internet, but we always were.


Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds. Everyone is suddenly going to stop buying consoles and handhelds and miniatures and dice and roleplaying game books. It'll be mass hysteria, dogs living with cats, and twinkies the size of Manhattan. The sky is falling. The world is ending. It's the metalocalypse out there.

All those 3DS sales? Meaningless. Wii U is going to bomb so hard Nintendo will go 3rd party. Sony am doomed. Microsoft am doomed. Everyone am doomed. All hail Apple.
 
2012-07-31 11:04:24 AM

TwistedFark: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Actually, it's easier to make games now than it was 10 years ago - not harder.

Budgets have definately gone up, but they've gone up on things like cinematics, production values (music, art direction) and advertising.

They treat games like mini-movies these days. That's where the cost is going - not ICT/developers.

/developer
//okay actually, senior manager of developers and testers... but i still code dammit


This is at least partially because, in the long term, a proper marketing campaign pays for itself many times over, and you're apparently better off sacrificing some aspects of the short term (qc, testing, final bug patching) which can be done post release and won't effect anyone but the insane fan, in favor of the marketing budget.
 
2012-07-31 11:04:58 AM

Shrugging Atlas: Why would you buy a game new at full price? Wait a month or less now and the prices start dropping. Christ I bought Assassin's Creed: Revelations for $9.99 new off the shelf at Best Buy.


Wait years and borrow them from your friends for free! I just finished Arkham Asylum last week.

Tried to play the original Assassins Creed and thought it sucked balls. Is Revelations or any of the other sequels any better? The originial was repetitive and boring to me.
 
2012-07-31 11:10:26 AM

The Homer Tax:
Tried to play the original Assassins Creed and thought it sucked balls. Is Revelations or any of the other sequels any better? The originial was repetitive and boring to me.


2 is a big step up from 1. Brotherhood and Revelations are incremental improvements on 2, and 3 promises to be a decent step up from 2 (although it's all pre-release marketing at this point, so grain of salt etc etc.)

Apparently there are two dev teams, one that does the major releases (1,2,3) and another that tweaked 2 into Brotherhood and Revelations. The former team appears to be the one with the vision/talent, and they're financed on the back of the other teams annual releases.
 
2012-07-31 11:11:19 AM
Cause outside exists and it is better than inside?
/ no?
// I'll be outside if you need me
 
2012-07-31 11:11:28 AM

natmar_76: HeartBurnKid: No, they won't. This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now. Gamers like you and me, we were always a niche. We let ourselves become convinced otherwise, thanks to media coverage and this awesome community we've built on the internet, but we always were.

Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds. Everyone is suddenly going to stop buying consoles and handhelds and miniatures and dice and roleplaying game books. It'll be mass hysteria, dogs living with cats, and twinkies the size of Manhattan. The sky is falling. The world is ending. It's the metalocalypse out there.

All those 3DS sales? Meaningless. Wii U is going to bomb so hard Nintendo will go 3rd party. Sony am doomed. Microsoft am doomed. Everyone am doomed. All hail Apple.


You are failing to comprehend some basic math here.

Let's say the size of the PC Gaming market is a "5".

The console market is, for sake of argument, 10x larger than that. So we'll say, "50".

If you are a game publisher, you can invest 10 million dollars in the PC Gaming market and get back say, potentially 12 million dollars in profit. Or you can invest that 10 million in the console market and get back potentially 120 million dollars in profit.

Now, the size of the mobile gaming market - Imagine it's something like "500".

Before even factoring in scarcity of resources (How many good development houses are out there and how many games can they make at one time?) if you are going to spend money funding games and innovation, which one is it going to be in?

This has been the bane of gaming since the farking Nintendo 64 came out. Since publisher control all the resources that produce games (money and human capital) they invest those resources in markets that will get them potentially the biggest return, which means in the case of a media product, has the widest audience.

Trust me, there will come a time in the future that having a console in your house for playing games will be viewed with the same level of disbelief as watching some dude jogging down the street with one of those "awesome" shock resistant disc-man players.
 
2012-07-31 11:11:53 AM

The Homer Tax: Shrugging Atlas: Why would you buy a game new at full price? Wait a month or less now and the prices start dropping. Christ I bought Assassin's Creed: Revelations for $9.99 new off the shelf at Best Buy.

Wait years and borrow them from your friends for free! I just finished Arkham Asylum last week.

Tried to play the original Assassins Creed and thought it sucked balls. Is Revelations or any of the other sequels any better? The originial was repetitive and boring to me.


Start with the second. AC2 is a monumental improvement on the first. Brotherhood and Revelations are basically standalone expansions for 2 (though quite good ones.)
 
2012-07-31 11:11:55 AM
I have thee consoles in my living room...

The time I spend playing? I couldn't even guess how much total in the last year, but it's minor.

I played one of the Resident Evil game through and started another after but that was over a month ago (at least), and a few times here and there, but I just don't find the time anymore.

I wanted for a long time before buying the last one (the Wii) as I was waiting to see who would bring out the next Fatal Frame... and both failed (it did get released in Japan for the Wii, but never released anywhere else), but as I tend to play with the kids as much as possible, the Wii still won out.

But even then, after getting all the better games, the only games I remember that I've bought in about 2 years were the karaoke games (2-3 of them) and the Resident Evil re-released (probably bought used).

I just don't see a new console appealing to me at this point thanks to the lack in games that would interest me as the older favourite ones I have have never been surpassed or such.

Favourite games? (off the top of my head)

Tech Romancer
Fatal Frame (collection)
Resident Evil (collection)
R.A.D.
Clock Tower (collection)
Karaokes (family fun nights)

/still peeved about the Fatal Frame thing
 
2012-07-31 11:20:39 AM

TwistedFark: Btw, great article here that pretty much echos what I am saying and the direction that the market is going in.


PROTIP: Large companies diversify. The only reason Sony is in the market in the first place is because Nintendo was making money at it. The only reason MS is is because Nintendo and Sony were.

Have you seen Steam's sales? They're doing better than ever. They continue to grow. Have you seen the first numbers on New Super Mario Brothers 2? It's doing better than NSMB DS did.

Did you pay attention to the Sony Xperia and its colossal flop? Did it help you realize that the core game space and the casual game space may overlap but have definite boundaries? Did you then go on to realize that 10 million sales of Angry Birds does not threaten 20 million sales of Mario Galaxy, it merely co-exists with it?

Have you done the math, and realized that Angry Birds at 15 million sales or so is only about $40,000,000 net profit, while one blockbuster big budget title at 20 million sales is $600,000,000 profit? Did you research the that Rovio's total 2012 profit including merch was only $100,000,00, far less than even one of Nintendo's big titles much less their entire stable of releases in a single year? Then did you further realize that Rovio is the one anomaly in the mobile equation, and no one else even comes close to that, and then further even than that, that it means profitability in the mobile space is razor thin? Have you read how many mobile developers have gone under?

You can listen to all the biased industry pundits all you want, but most of them are talking heads that regurgitate the latest buzz straight from the source of the buzz (Apple and other mobile manufacturers). They aren't prognosticating. They aren't reporting. They're just blueskying, as the phrase is used. They're looking at $600 phones that cost $60-$100 more a month, have no buttons, play crappy 5 minute $1 games, and calling them the entirety of our future because that's what's in the news right now. They aren't actually seriously considering all the financial and consumer angles. They aren't studying statistics and sales. They're just flapping their gums.

The end of a console generation is always slow. That's how console generations work. People get tired of the old tech. It's the reason Apple releases a new overpriced phone every 6 to 12 months. Watch this next year. Watch consoles sell well. Watch industry experts spin their ridiculous stories about how exciting and fun the new tech is, how great it is in the family living room, how it offers experiences you can't get on phones.

Or keep running around like the sky is falling for the next 12 months until that happens. Then feel silly.
 
2012-07-31 11:24:46 AM
FTFA: But part of that means ditching consoles. Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked. The future consumer is just not going to accept that, not in a world where Google ports your apps to your new Android phone and everything that streams Netflix will also stream OnLive.

Yeah and smartphones/tables made obsolete at least every year aren't?

You think people are still using phones from 5-6 years ago? Heck, even the PS2 is still selling and it's a 12 years old device.
 
2012-07-31 11:25:09 AM

natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.


Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.
 
2012-07-31 11:27:04 AM

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.


Inflation, how the fark does that work?

$50 in 2002 is about $60 today.
 
2012-07-31 11:28:47 AM
Consoles will still be around; they'll just shift from discs to DRM-shackled streaming, killing the used game market.
 
2012-07-31 11:29:11 AM

Psylence: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Remember when games were gonna be cheaper since they were on CD/DVD instead of cartridges with expensive memory chips?


They are quite less expensive when you account for inflation. Nintendo games were insanely expensive back in the 80s.
 
2012-07-31 11:36:56 AM

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.


I don't know about you with your PS3 but I played the shiat out of my X-Box 360. Oblivion, Skyrim, Dragon Age, Madden, Call of Duty, the Mass Effect series -- I got maybe five or six thousand hours of entertainment out of those games over the last what, 6 or 7 years since I bought it? I'm not a super heavy gamer but we're talking less than a dime an hour of entertainment on the system, maybe an average of around another $0.10 to $0.25 an hour depending on the game (I tend to buy used and/or play the hell out of my games)

Do you watch cable TV? You probably spend $100 a month on that. How many hours do you spend watching TV a month? If you're spending 400 hours a month on TV, that's $0.25 an hour. I don't watch that much TV, I don't know about you.

Do you go to movies? You're talking around $5.00 an hour for entertainment.

How about a night drinking at the bar?

Don't get me started on ball games, strip clubs, or casinos.

Video game consoles are insanely cheap entertainment.
 
2012-07-31 11:36:57 AM

TwistedFark: Trust me, there will come a time in the future that having a console in your house for playing games will be viewed with the same level of disbelief as watching some dude jogging down the street with one of those "awesome" shock resistant disc-man players.


You're such a visionary. Wait, that's not the word I want... Idiot... Yeah, that's it.
 
2012-07-31 11:37:43 AM

HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.


Yeah, but Angry Birds is the ONLY game having that numbers. It's the utmost example of mobile gaming. Not even close to what the average/media game does. And you can't really engineer another Angry Birds seeing how it was the work of serendipity. You think the "brilliant" minds at Rovio are
going to come up with something comparable? Hell no. That's why they keep milking Angry Birds with new seasons and versions.

Console gaming has dozens of high selling franchises that have entered the public consciousness: Mario, Zelda, Final Fantasy, GOW, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Call of Duty, Guitar Hero / Rock Band, etc.
 
2012-07-31 11:51:09 AM
Sure consoles are going to die unless you look at how much they actually make, When games like call of duty are making 800 million plus in the first week people won't stop making them anytime soon.
 
2012-07-31 11:52:16 AM

Erix: Eh, not that worried about it. I'm a cheap bastard that hasn't had much time to play lately. So I'm always a generation or two behind in consoles. Whatever happens, I've still got an extra decade or so of gaming, even if they die off tomorrow.

/still plays N64


I still play PS2. Hell Madden 12 and NCAA 11 were released on it.
 
2012-07-31 11:55:20 AM
I can't play on consoles. Switched to PC (as such) after ColecoVision. I have an experience gap, and the controllers of modern consoles are useless in my grasp. never had and NES, or Sega, or anything. I had an N64 for a while in 2000 or so, couldn't do it. Joysticks are for fists, not thumbs. It was all I could do to train myself to use a stick with my left hand when PC games went 3D. That's still how I play today.

Old games on a fairly lame PC, with these as my tools for fun:

static.mercadoshops.com

img2.mlstatic.com
 
2012-07-31 11:55:32 AM
Dear Game Designers,
When I pay $60 for a game, I want the full game. I don't necessarily have time to run through 40 levels to unlock a certain car, or plane. Please stop. One more thing, can at least one person writing flight sims please pick up an RC airplane. The aileron and elevator controls belong on the right stick!
Sincerely,
DTN
 
2012-07-31 11:56:14 AM

HeartBurnKid: FirstNationalBastard: ....because Computer gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a small, vocal, nerdy segment of gamers?

No, because console gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a slightly-larger, equally-vocal, equally-nerdy segment of gamers.


HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.


Mario Kart for the Wii generated 1.4 billion in revenue.
 
2012-07-31 11:57:02 AM

Khellendros: And they're not expensive, compared to desktops or laptops capable of running modern games ($300ish).


When I bought mine, the PS3 was the cheapest, most full-featured Blu-Ray player on the market. Why would I buy a dedicated player when I can have a console that does much more?
 
2012-07-31 11:57:42 AM

natmar_76: Have you done the math, and realized that Angry Birds at 15 million sales or so is only about $40,000,000 net profit, while one blockbuster big budget title at 20 million sales is $600,000,000 profit? Did you research the that Rovio's total 2012 profit including merch was only $100,000,00, far less than even one of Nintendo's big titles much less their entire stable of releases in a single year? Then did you further realize that Rovio is the one anomaly in the mobile equation, and no one else even comes close to that, and then further even than that, that it means profitability in the mobile space is razor thin? Have you read how many mobile developers have gone under?


Rovio makes about $80 million dollars a year from their stupid Angry Birds franchise. Do you know how much it cost to develop that game? $140,000.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best selling video game of all time. It made over 1 billion (yes, $1,000,000,000) dollars. It took 2 years to develop, cost nearly 200 million dollars in development and marketing costs.

To put it succinctly:

Angry Birds: Paid 571 to 1 for Rovio.
Call of Duty: Black Ops Paid 5 to 1 for Activision.

It's actually worse than that for Activision, because it took them 2 years to develop so their cash was tied up.

Also, the numbers don't even tell the whole story. You're not thinking like a businessman or an investor - a big part of this equation here is risk. If you're running your business off these big numbers, all it takes is one flop and you're gone. Just look at what is happening to Take Two Interactive right now (parent company of Rockstar). They sunk 105 million dollars into Max Payne 3 and then just moved 440k units in the first month. Their share price has dropped from almost 16 dollars right before the release, to currently 9 dollars. They lost almost half of their valuation because of one flop.

Business investors are naturally risk averse. The current triple-A title model of gaming is about as risky as they come and you're going to see the shifting of investment funds away from it into mobiles just because the profit margins are freaking massive. With just the money that Take 2 lost on Max Payne, they could have seeded the development of dozens of mobile titles. What do you think their hit/miss ratio would have been on that? Hell, all it would take is one good game out of that to protect their investment and everything else would have been gravy.

This stuff is elementary, you just have to follow the money...
 
2012-07-31 11:57:46 AM

HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.


no. no, and nope.

the next gen consoles "xbox 360 part deux, PS4, WII U" will do ok and sell millions, and also integrated even more completely into a home entertainment device than the current ones do. games can still leap forward, and cell phones and PC's will not kill the market. Hell, the only reason this current gen has lasted so long is because games have plateued as to what can be done and it all looks fantastic - the next gen will look like PIXAR movies and will just be amazing.
 
2012-07-31 11:59:10 AM

rocky_howard: Yeah, but Angry Birds is the ONLY game having that numbers. It's the utmost example of mobile gaming. Not even close to what the average/media game does


Bejeweled, Plants Vs. Zombies, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Doodle Jump, Draw Something, Words With Friends... maybe not quite Angry Birds numbers, but enough to put traditional console games to shame.

Wear your blinders at your own peril. We are the niche, and we always have been. Publishers are starting to realize that.
 
2012-07-31 11:59:55 AM

meanmutton: Video game consoles are insanely cheap entertainment.


Depends on the game.

Some games I've played the absolute hell out of of, just like you. Skyrim, the GTA games, etc., each has given me hours and hours of entertainment. They end up amortizing out to less than $1/hour for the price of the game. Then there's some other games I've just not played much- they didn't really do it for me or they just didn't provide much play time... I've got some that I've basically paid $10/hour to play. Still cheaper than a casino, but that isn't saying much.

Any more that's how I look at games before I buy them- if it won't provide 20+ hours of playtime without resorting to online deathmatches, I'm not that interested.
 
2012-07-31 12:01:39 PM

TwistedFark: natmar_76: Have you done the math, and realized that Angry Birds at 15 million sales or so is only about $40,000,000 net profit, while one blockbuster big budget title at 20 million sales is $600,000,000 profit? Did you research the that Rovio's total 2012 profit including merch was only $100,000,00, far less than even one of Nintendo's big titles much less their entire stable of releases in a single year? Then did you further realize that Rovio is the one anomaly in the mobile equation, and no one else even comes close to that, and then further even than that, that it means profitability in the mobile space is razor thin? Have you read how many mobile developers have gone under?

Rovio makes about $80 million dollars a year from their stupid Angry Birds franchise. Do you know how much it cost to develop that game? $140,000.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best selling video game of all time. It made over 1 billion (yes, $1,000,000,000) dollars. It took 2 years to develop, cost nearly 200 million dollars in development and marketing costs.

To put it succinctly:

Angry Birds: Paid 571 to 1 for Rovio.
Call of Duty: Black Ops Paid 5 to 1 for Activision.

It's actually worse than that for Activision, because it took them 2 years to develop so their cash was tied up.

Also, the numbers don't even tell the whole story. You're not thinking like a businessman or an investor - a big part of this equation here is risk. If you're running your business off these big numbers, all it takes is one flop and you're gone. Just look at what is happening to Take Two Interactive right now (parent company of Rockstar). They sunk 105 million dollars into Max Payne 3 and then just moved 440k units in the first month. Their share price has dropped from almost 16 dollars right before the release, to currently 9 dollars. They lost almost half of their valuation because of one flop.

Business investors are naturally risk averse. The current triple-A title model of gaming is about as risky as ...


And still call of duty brought in a lot more money than angry birds. yes the ROI on angry birds is amazing but the total revenue isn't even close.

Call of duty - 1.5 billion
Mario kart - 1.4 billion
Angry Birds - 68 million
 
2012-07-31 12:02:15 PM

HeartBurnKid: rocky_howard: Yeah, but Angry Birds is the ONLY game having that numbers. It's the utmost example of mobile gaming. Not even close to what the average/media game does

Bejeweled, Plants Vs. Zombies, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Doodle Jump, Draw Something, Words With Friends... maybe not quite Angry Birds numbers, but enough to put traditional console games to shame.

Wear your blinders at your own peril. We are the niche, and we always have been. Publishers are starting to realize that.


Call of duty - 1.5 billion
Mario kart - 1.4 billion
Angry Birds - 68 million
 
2012-07-31 12:02:49 PM

Russky: HeartBurnKid: FirstNationalBastard: ....because Computer gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a small, vocal, nerdy segment of gamers?

No, because console gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a slightly-larger, equally-vocal, equally-nerdy segment of gamers.

HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.

Mario Kart for the Wii generated 1.4 billion in revenue.


Because Nintendo rightly recognized us as a niche and reached into that "Blue Ocean", as they called it. They were able to do that because those people weren't playing games. Now they are, and it's not on consoles. Like I said before:

HeartBurnKid: This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now.

 
2012-07-31 12:04:32 PM

HeartBurnKid: Russky: HeartBurnKid: FirstNationalBastard: ....because Computer gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a small, vocal, nerdy segment of gamers?

No, because console gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a slightly-larger, equally-vocal, equally-nerdy segment of gamers.

HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.

Mario Kart for the Wii generated 1.4 billion in revenue.

Because Nintendo rightly recognized us as a niche and reached into that "Blue Ocean", as they called it. They were able to do that because those people weren't playing games. Now they are, and it's not on consoles. Like I said before:

HeartBurnKid: This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now.


I don't know anyone that was a big call of duty gamer that suddenly stopped playing games on the big screen for something like angry birds.

Call of duty - 1.5 billion
Mario kart - 1.4 billion
Angry Birds - 68 million
 
2012-07-31 12:05:41 PM

Russky: HeartBurnKid: rocky_howard: Yeah, but Angry Birds is the ONLY game having that numbers. It's the utmost example of mobile gaming. Not even close to what the average/media game does

Bejeweled, Plants Vs. Zombies, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Doodle Jump, Draw Something, Words With Friends... maybe not quite Angry Birds numbers, but enough to put traditional console games to shame.

Wear your blinders at your own peril. We are the niche, and we always have been. Publishers are starting to realize that.

Call of duty - 1.5 billion
Mario kart - 1.4 billion
Angry Birds - 68 million


Those are great revenue figures. How much was profit?
 
2012-07-31 12:06:11 PM

HeartBurnKid: Russky: HeartBurnKid: FirstNationalBastard: ....because Computer gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a small, vocal, nerdy segment of gamers?

No, because console gamers keep deluding themselves into thinking they're not just a slightly-larger, equally-vocal, equally-nerdy segment of gamers.

HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.

Mario Kart for the Wii generated 1.4 billion in revenue.

Because Nintendo rightly recognized us as a niche and reached into that "Blue Ocean", as they called it. They were able to do that because those people weren't playing games. Now they are, and it's not on consoles. Like I said before:

HeartBurnKid: This last generation sold more consoles than ever before the smartphone and tablet booms. The people who kept the Wii on backorder for two years straight won't do the same with the Wii U; they have an iPhone and iPad to play games on now.


GTA - 1.35 billion
Wii Play - 1.25 billion
Angry birds - 68 million
 
2012-07-31 12:06:38 PM

Russky: I don't know anyone that was a big call of duty gamer that suddenly stopped playing games on the big screen for something like angry birds.


And the point flies right over your head, too.
 
2012-07-31 12:08:00 PM

Russky: And still call of duty brought in a lot more money than angry birds. yes the ROI on angry birds is amazing but the total revenue isn't even close.

Call of duty - 1.5 billion
Mario kart - 1.4 billion
Angry Birds - 68 million


You're missing the point. You can tie up 200 million bucks of capital on a single shot that may pay 5 or 6 to 1, or you can diversify that capital across 20 different games that could potentially pay 100 or 200 or 300 to 1. The pure massive size of the market is sheltering all the risk of your investment.

Publishers are not going to continue to eat that much risk. Game budgets are going to come down and they're going to be looking to pick up the profits in volume through larger markets.
 
2012-07-31 12:08:43 PM
Hey, does anyone know how much revenue Mario Kart generated?
 
2012-07-31 12:09:21 PM

TwistedFark: You're missing the point.


Russky sounds like a bad gambler.
 
2012-07-31 12:10:08 PM

HeartBurnKid: Those are great revenue figures. How much was profit?


Do you think an investor would care more that your game is making 1m right now at 100k cost or will make 1m over 10 years at 10k cost? It's nice that Angry Birds was a massive success, but mobile takeover of console markets just isn't going to happen.
 
2012-07-31 12:10:50 PM

HeartBurnKid: Russky: HeartBurnKid: rocky_howard: Yeah, but Angry Birds is the ONLY game having that numbers. It's the utmost example of mobile gaming. Not even close to what the average/media game does

Bejeweled, Plants Vs. Zombies, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Doodle Jump, Draw Something, Words With Friends... maybe not quite Angry Birds numbers, but enough to put traditional console games to shame.

Wear your blinders at your own peril. We are the niche, and we always have been. Publishers are starting to realize that.

Call of duty - 1.5 billion
Mario kart - 1.4 billion
Angry Birds - 68 million

Those are great revenue figures. How much was profit?


Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.
 
2012-07-31 12:12:06 PM

TwistedFark: Russky: And still call of duty brought in a lot more money than angry birds. yes the ROI on angry birds is amazing but the total revenue isn't even close.

Call of duty - 1.5 billion
Mario kart - 1.4 billion
Angry Birds - 68 million

You're missing the point. You can tie up 200 million bucks of capital on a single shot that may pay 5 or 6 to 1, or you can diversify that capital across 20 different games that could potentially pay 100 or 200 or 300 to 1. The pure massive size of the market is sheltering all the risk of your investment.

Publishers are not going to continue to eat that much risk. Game budgets are going to come down and they're going to be looking to pick up the profits in volume through larger markets.


Games have a higher ROI than movies, why would they stop making games?
 
2012-07-31 12:12:21 PM

HeartBurnKid: Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.


Downloaded... for free. Only a small number of those people actually buy Angry Birds.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/07/rovios-big-year-angry-birds-helps-ga m ing-company-soar-to-106m-in-sales648m-downloads/

They only made $65 million last year. That's just a fraction of the profits of ONE of Nintendo's big titles last year, much less every big title in the core industry. And that's just the one big name in mobile. There are few others that approach even that much.

Again, mobile co-exists. It's nice for a few small companies. It's not a threat to "core" gaming, which is why Nintendo is refocusing on core gamers with the Wii U, where the big money is at.
 
2012-07-31 12:13:10 PM

sprawl15: TwistedFark: You're missing the point.

Russky sounds like a bad gambler.


Maybe but call of duty made more profit than Avatar so do you really think people will stop making games? Really?
 
2012-07-31 12:13:11 PM

TwistedFark: natmar_76: Have you done the math, and realized that Angry Birds at 15 million sales or so is only about $40,000,000 net profit, while one blockbuster big budget title at 20 million sales is $600,000,000 profit? Did you research the that Rovio's total 2012 profit including merch was only $100,000,00, far less than even one of Nintendo's big titles much less their entire stable of releases in a single year? Then did you further realize that Rovio is the one anomaly in the mobile equation, and no one else even comes close to that, and then further even than that, that it means profitability in the mobile space is razor thin? Have you read how many mobile developers have gone under?

Rovio makes about $80 million dollars a year from their stupid Angry Birds franchise. Do you know how much it cost to develop that game? $140,000.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best selling video game of all time. It made over 1 billion (yes, $1,000,000,000) dollars. It took 2 years to develop, cost nearly 200 million dollars in development and marketing costs.

To put it succinctly:

Angry Birds: Paid 571 to 1 for Rovio.
Call of Duty: Black Ops Paid 5 to 1 for Activision.


And whether every number you put here is correct or not, it's fairly irrelevant. They're not the same market. A person with X hours per week to game who buys Angry Birds for entertainment is not the same market as the person who buys Max Payne, Oblivion, or Halo Reach. True, a few low-risk developers will move from one to the other (and shrink, because their revenues will tank and won't be able to support a large enterprise), but there will still be a large demand for more grand titles - and they're willing to pay $60 or $70 for them.

You're talking about operating margin and supply, but you're forgetting the demand side. No matter the initial investment, video game companies know they can sell millions of units at $60 a pop. Yes it's risky, but companies aren't slowing down on game development, they're doubling down. The payoff is too great if you create the next Bioshock or Assassin's Creed not to try. Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja just don't do that.
 
2012-07-31 12:14:38 PM

HeartBurnKid: Russky: I don't know anyone that was a big call of duty gamer that suddenly stopped playing games on the big screen for something like angry birds.

And the point flies right over your head, too.


Ever wonder how it's possible to share a planet with people who ostensibly speak the exact same language as you and they can't even comprehend a relatively simple concept like this?
 
2012-07-31 12:17:04 PM

Russky: Games have a higher ROI than movies, why would they stop making games?


And if TwistedFark's perceived ability to understand investors is correct, why are they still making movies?

There shouldn't have been any movies made since the PS2, because investors made the smart bet of putting their money in game development.
 
2012-07-31 12:17:39 PM
Apparently

TwistedFark: You're missing the point. You can tie up 200 million bucks of capital on a single shot that may pay 5 or 6 to 1, or you can diversify that capital across 20 different games that could potentially pay 100 or 200 or 300 to 1. The pure massive size of the market is sheltering all the risk of your investment.

Publishers are not going to continue to eat that much risk. Game budgets are going to come down and they're going to be looking to pick up the profits in volume through larger markets.


Except the number of developers who actually make it as big as Angry Birds is... zero, exactly zero. A couple of others come close, but other than that it's the anomaly, not the standard. There are just as many developers who have bankrupted themselves on iPhone as there are on the consoles, more in fact because the business model "seems" inviting and invites small developers with limited resources, when in fact it is as brutal as any other proposition in the gaming industry.
 
2012-07-31 12:18:35 PM

natmar_76: Apparently TwistedFark: You're missing the point. You can tie up 200 million bucks of capital on a single shot that may pay 5 or 6 to 1, or you can diversify that capital across 20 different games that could potentially pay 100 or 200 or 300 to 1. The pure massive size of the market is sheltering all the risk of your investment.

Publishers are not going to continue to eat that much risk. Game budgets are going to come down and they're going to be looking to pick up the profits in volume through larger markets.

Except the number of developers who actually make it as big as Angry Birds is... zero, exactly zero. A couple of others come close, but other than that it's the anomaly, not the standard. There are just as many developers who have bankrupted themselves on iPhone as there are on the consoles, more in fact because the business model "seems" inviting and invites small developers with limited resources, when in fact it is as brutal as any other proposition in the gaming industry.


Don't let facts get in the way of talking with these fools. Seriously don't waste your time, ROI is great but total profit means more.
 
2012-07-31 12:20:07 PM

Slaves2Darkness:
Maybe it is just me, but "gaming" on a tablet or smart phone sucks donkey balls.


A coworker recently showed me a shooter game on his iPad3. Graphics were nice (really nice, I thought, for a tablet), gameplay was fluid. It looked kinda fun. The thing is, though, is that it uses touch screen controls. That's hardly shocking considering touchscreens are a big deal feature of tablets. Personally, I hate touch screen controls for games. My hands block the images on the screen. My fat fingers miss the "sweet spots" when I'm aiming or trying to direct movement or I press multiple buttons/zones at once.
 
2012-07-31 12:20:16 PM

impaler: Russky: Games have a higher ROI than movies, why would they stop making games?

And if TwistedFark's perceived ability to understand investors is correct, why are they still making movies?

There shouldn't have been any movies made since the PS2, because investors made the smart bet of putting their money in game development.


They wouldn't be making them, hence why he's a fool.
 
2012-07-31 12:21:41 PM

Khellendros: You're talking about operating margin and supply, but you're forgetting the demand side.


Actually no, I'm taking it as an established fact that the demand side of this equation is freaking huge.

250 million people play Zynga games on Facebook. That's retarded.

Also I'm not postulating that they will abandon entire platforms, but what I am saying is that they are going to reduce investment in them over the long run. That 200 million dollar budget will drop to 100 million and then 50 million. They'll still charge you $60 dollars a unit (so don't worry about that) but rather than expanding budgets, they'll contract them.

Someone brought up movies - that's a good example. Film companies use complicated webs of insurance and tax write offs to hedge their risk. Without these facilities, the movie industry as it currently stands couldn't operate.
 
2012-07-31 12:22:45 PM

Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.


No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?
 
2012-07-31 12:26:19 PM
Shovelware: It's already here. Go check out the Xbox Live "Indie" section. It's possible to provide your users mountains of questionable content, showcase the gems and still keep it cordoned off. It's never going to be "1982 for Atari" again.

The rest of his points are mostly ignorant or misinformed. It's almost like the author doesn't know anything about consoles, but was willing to take a go at them with peripheral issues.

Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked.

Here's where he craters the entire article and tips his hand. My Xbox 360 is the centerpiece of my entire home theater. Games, DVDs, Netflix, Hulu, Zune, Pandora, Media Center for all PCs and NAS ... c'mon it does everything. It's like this guy has never seen one before. The 360 launched back in 2005 -- that gives the device a longer lifetime than any previous console generation. Over-the-air software updates can extend that "built-in" expiration time for years.
 
2012-07-31 12:26:24 PM

HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


If i said here you can have $40 million in profit from Angry Birds or 1 Billion from Call of Duty which would you take?
 
2012-07-31 12:27:43 PM

The Homer Tax: Shrugging Atlas: Why would you buy a game new at full price? Wait a month or less now and the prices start dropping. Christ I bought Assassin's Creed: Revelations for $9.99 new off the shelf at Best Buy.

Wait years and borrow them from your friends for free! I just finished Arkham Asylum last week.

Tried to play the original Assassins Creed and thought it sucked balls. Is Revelations or any of the other sequels any better? The originial was repetitive and boring to me.


Skip the original at all costs! It's horrible in it's own right, and probably more so now that it's dated. Go straight to AC2. It's barely even the same game, and the chracter and events of one have almost no bearing on anything until Revelations and even then you'll be fine without playing 1.

As for Revelations, I haven't had much of a chance to get into it, but it seems worth the 10 bucks I paid. I thought AC2 was good, and the sequel (Brotherhood) was even better.
 
2012-07-31 12:28:08 PM

Doublespeak: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

If i said here you can have $40 million in profit from Angry Birds or 1 Billion from Call of Duty which would you take?


If I can make 100 games like Angry Birds for the price of 1 Call of Duty, I'll take the Angry Birds.
 
2012-07-31 12:28:22 PM

HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


Don't forget about market cap too.

COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?

Console ownership has reached saturation. At this point, everyone who is going to own a console owns one already. Publishers are going to be fighting for the same scraps from the table, so they won't be able to just spend more money on a single product for a big pay day, they'll have to diversify - then they'll run into their next problem, all they've been able to sell for the last decade is one rythm game and a bunch of FPS's with cover mechanics. Whooo boy. Good luck growing that.
 
2012-07-31 12:31:31 PM

HeartBurnKid: No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


Except it's more like buying 10 ponds from a pool of 1000 bonds that will pay $0 in 30 days, and one that will pay $100, vs buying a bond that pays $15. The hand-held market is fickle and faddish. Angry Birds is like the "pet rock" of the 70s.
 
2012-07-31 12:33:00 PM

HeartBurnKid: Doublespeak: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

If i said here you can have $40 million in profit from Angry Birds or 1 Billion from Call of Duty which would you take?

If I can make 100 games like Angry Birds for the price of 1 Call of Duty, I'll take the Angry Birds.


But you won't make 100 games like angry birds because you are taking one of the most extreme examples. Obviously if you can make 100 of the best selling of anything in a market you will take it, but it's unrealistic.

What are the odds of being able to make 100 best selling games like angry birds, not very good and that's where your logic breaks down. People pay a lot less for mobile games, it's profitable but it doesn't have nearly the potential in total earnings that console games have.

I could probably have a much better ROI on a lemon stand than a restaurant so why aren't people starting more lemon stands? Because the total profit potential isn't the same as a restaurant.
\
 
2012-07-31 12:33:32 PM

HeartBurnKid: If I can make 100 games like Angry Birds for the price of 1 Call of Duty, I'll take the Angry Birds.


All the applications on the hand-held market combined don't have 100 distinguishable titles at the level of Angry Birds. You can't get 100 Angry Birds. That's the point.
 
2012-07-31 12:34:16 PM

TwistedFark: But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?


And the amount they're willing to spend is about 50 times less.
 
2012-07-31 12:36:47 PM

Psylence: Companies are killing their own gaming divisions due to greed, and poor planning.

I've been a rabid gamer since Intellivision, but every year I buy less and less. Sequelitis, lack of interesting new properties... being nickel-and-dimed for DLC or fark, even GEAR?! I don't see myself buying any of the next-gen consoles, and that makes me sad.


Isn't this the usual MO for all business execs?

A. Something comes along and becomes the "it" item
B. Execs exploit"it" for all it's worth until the well runs dry
C. See "A"

Nothing new here and this applies to just about any concept/idea that comes along that becomes successful.
 
2012-07-31 12:42:39 PM

impaler: All the applications on the hand-held market combined don't have 100 distinguishable titles at the level of Angry Birds. You can't get 100 Angry Birds. That's the point.


No, but we've already established that you can make something like 1400 games with the budget of Angry Birds for one Call of Duty.

If Call of Duty pays 1 to 5 on a single shot. What does the pay off have to look like across your 1400 titles to be competitive? Sure, 1400 titles may sound INSANE - but you're looking at a market is that is 50 to 100 times larger.

To be realistic, you wouldn't launch 1400 titles. But you'd probably launch 50. You'd make sure that they had localisation too so that you could hit big markets like India and China where mobile gaming is huge. You'd keep budget modest, probablyno more than 3-5 millon dollars a game and you'd aim for something like a modestly succesful 12 to 1 ROI.

And of course, you'd do this every 3 months.

The sad thing is, even putting out that many titles a year, you'd still not saturate the market. Fark, I've seen people spend money, actual real money, on a button that makes their phone fart. The barrier for success here is not very high.

I also like how we are comparing a game developed by a few guys for 140k to a massive 2 year triple-a title worked on by over 150 people for 200 million. As if somehow you couldn't pump up the mobile game budget sufficiently to create compelling gaming experiences on these devices.
 
2012-07-31 12:44:24 PM

TwistedFark: Khellendros: stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.

Growth in development time, manpower, and money needed to develop a game now vs. 10 years ago, 3% average inflation per year.... not to beat up the point, but increasing about $10 per generation of gaming system isn't a stretch. I'm not arguing the investment point (that's personal preference and value over time), but the cost increase isn't really out of line.

Actually, it's easier to make games now than it was 10 years ago - not harder.

Budgets have definately gone up, but they've gone up on things like cinematics, production values (music, art direction) and advertising.

They treat games like mini-movies these days. That's where the cost is going - not ICT/developers.


It's sad that most of this are going to FPSes that aren't even worth a damn.

How about bringing back some classic games that were WORTH it instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with all these FPSes?
 
2012-07-31 12:44:52 PM
I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.
 
2012-07-31 12:47:39 PM

TwistedFark: COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?


And even with CoD at such a profound disadvantage, it would still take 10 years for Angry Birds to match it. And in that meantime, CoD has come out with CoD3, which sold more than BOps, so stack another billion on top of that. And next year, CoD will probably put out another one, so stack another billion on that. It could've taken 1 billion to develop all 3 (which it didn't since BOps/MW3 run on the same engine, but for argument's sake) and that's still 20m Angry Birds has to make up to exceed their profits. Angry Birds isn't alone though, they've got..... uhh.... that one other game that's supremely popular... uhh...
 
2012-07-31 12:48:01 PM

HeartBurnKid: natmar_76: Yeah, the 20 million people who buy challenging Mario platformers and Call of Duty are all going to migrate to Angry Birds.

Angry Birds was downloaded 648 million times in 2011 alone. 200 million people play it in a single month.

This is what I'm talking about. You throw around 20 million like it's a big number, but it's not. Compared to the sheer number of people gaming, it's shiat, especially when you consider the extra time and money it takes to cater to us. PC gaming will survive, because there are practically no barriers to entry and it turns out that the hardware that's good for pushing polygons is pretty good at other things too (through CUDA and OpenCL). But consoles? Their time is rapidly fading.


I yearn for the day that PC gaming is front and center again.
 
2012-07-31 12:50:25 PM

rocky_howard: I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.


You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.
 
2012-07-31 12:50:40 PM

Russky: Maybe but call of duty made more profit than Avatar so do you really think people will stop making games? Really?


Switch it around. If gaming is more profitable than movie making, why does anybody make movies?
 
2012-07-31 12:52:57 PM

TwistedFark: Khellendros: TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

I see the numbers argument, but I don't think it holds up over time, particularly given people's preferences. No matter the margins, "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions. No matter the margins or profitability, I don't see Fruit Ninja and Farmville replacing Call of Duty long term. However, it likely is opening up a very new lucrative sub-market of its own.

Flight sims used to be the most popular (and lucrative) gaming genre.

Yes, Flight Sims.

So don't go thinking that FPS's are some sort of sacred cow. Something more popular will come along and the big publishers will chase after those dollars and sideline your favorite genre.

I'm not saying you're a kid or anything like that (I don't honestly know), but I do understand that it's difficult for people to understand how these vast sea changes can happen without having lived through one (or two).

/flight sims?!?!


Who owns the Sierra/Dynamix library right now? If they'd modernize the Aces/Red Baron series, I'm sure they'd sell. We haven't had a good flight sim since IL-2, and that's now going on almost a decade.
 
2012-07-31 12:53:15 PM

UrCa: TwistedFark: COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?

And even with CoD at such a profound disadvantage, it would still take 10 years for Angry Birds to match it. And in that meantime, CoD has come out with CoD3, which sold more than BOps, so stack another billion on top of that. And next year, CoD will probably put out another one, so stack another billion on that. It could've taken 1 billion to develop all 3 (which it didn't since BOps/MW3 run on the same engine, but for argument's sake) and that's still 20m Angry Birds has to make up to exceed their profits. Angry Birds isn't alone though, they've got..... uhh.... that one other game that's supremely popular... uhh...


1) Why can you only have 1 mobile game to one triple-a title when the mobile game costs like 1/1400th to develop? Couldn't you perhaps.... develop more games?
2) Do you not understand what a profoundly bad business model it is to have only one product that you must sell an upgrade to every year otherwise your company goes out of business?
 
2012-07-31 12:55:29 PM

TwistedFark: You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.


You're calling someone else an idiot, when your own reasoning would have predicted the total demise of the production of movies in the 2000s?

Link
 
2012-07-31 12:58:35 PM
The entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.
 
2012-07-31 12:59:17 PM

Doublespeak: But you won't make 100 games like angry birds because you are taking one of the most extreme examples


Both of them are. What if I don't end up making the next Call of Duty? What if I end up making the next Brutal Legend instead? (Don't get me wrong, I love Brutal Legend, but it didn't exactly set sales charts on fire).
 
2012-07-31 12:59:18 PM

TwistedFark: 1) Why can you only have 1 mobile game to one triple-a title when the mobile game costs like 1/1400th to develop? Couldn't you perhaps.... develop more games?


Please list all the other successful games developed by Rovio Entertainment...

The answer is "no, you can't just make more games."

This isn't the field of dreams. If you build it, more than likely no one will come.
 
2012-07-31 01:02:24 PM

TwistedFark: rocky_howard: I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.

You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.


the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.
 
2012-07-31 01:06:30 PM

HeartBurnKid: No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


I would buy all of them, because they're all profitable and I have $20 to spend. This is both the obvious answer and the correct analogy. You're creating a false dilemma. The market can clearly support both Call of Duty and Angry Birds - they're already there. They'll continue to be there. They'll continue to both make money. The gaming market is enormously bigger than it was 10 years ago and it's not just because of consoles or just because of casual games.

The line between consoles and general purpose computers may continue to blur more and more but there will still be big expensive games and cheap simple games regardless of platform.
 
2012-07-31 01:08:00 PM

TwistedFark: There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.



And I'll say it again - they're not the same market, so it doesn't matter. Your entire premise requires them to be the same group, spending the same budgeted money for the same entertainment niche. That's simply not the case. Much in the same way reality television or "The Blair Witch Project" isn't going to make a dent in "Avatar". Different markets, different spending niches, different time/resource audiences.

A low revenue/high ROI product is the very definition of a niche product. Something you don't let go of, but you can't build a company from. They're low investment/low return/high ROI products. Good profit margins, but no golden payday.
 
2012-07-31 01:08:06 PM

Doublespeak: TwistedFark: rocky_howard: I love the people posting ROI numbers. That's just a proportional figure, NOTHING more.

I may put a lemonade stand and have a 45 to 1 ROI. What? Snapple/Gatorade should close their factories since they're getting whipped.

Oh wait, they're still making a billion times what I'm making.

If you use proportional figures to discuss standing, then you're a fool.

You're an idiot.

There are two major points to the argument:

1) Mobile games have a greater ROI.
2) Mobile gaming has a higher market cap than console gaming.

Just because someone isn't exploiting it, that doesn't mean that there aren't a couple of billion of smart devices out there to game on compared to maybe a hundred million consoles across all vendors.

To use your own example, it's not you being in competition with Gatorade. It's Pepsi, who owns Gatorade, deciding that there is a bigger market for Cola drinks instead of Sports Drinks and hence spending all their R&D, development and marketing on Cola instead of new flavors of Gatorade.

the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.


Hmm that actually means the call of duty franchise since 2008 has made the same amount of revenue as the entire app store in the same amount of time.
 
2012-07-31 01:09:08 PM

Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.


The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com
/hotlinked
 
2012-07-31 01:09:18 PM

TwistedFark: 1) Why can you only have 1 mobile game to one triple-a title when the mobile game costs like 1/1400th to develop? Couldn't you perhaps.... develop more games?
2) Do you not understand what a profoundly bad business model it is to have only one product that you must sell an upgrade to every year otherwise your company goes out of business?


1) True, but the thing is there is no other Angry Birds. 3 Years and no other mobile game has reached their success. You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side. They have Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Draw Something, and then they stop. None of those games are even owned by the same publisher. If your game is free, you're living off borrowed time, because your game will dwindle and die when the next big thing pops up. In all likelihood it's your own game taking over the market from your previous game, which is just you extending the life of your revenue stream. Rovio's revenue isn't just from the vanilla Angry Birds, it's also Seasons, Rio, and Space extending their relevance.

2) Also true, but they've got their fingers in other games whose budgets aren't as huge as CoDs. Skylanders is big, Transformers will probably sell very well, and they even have an Angry Birds title in the works, how convenient.
 
2012-07-31 01:11:04 PM

TwistedFark: Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.

The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 595x244]
/hotlinked


I never said there wasn't a demand or that apps one the app store don't make money. I was simply pointing out that you are foolish for thinking the console game market is going away anytime soon.
 
2012-07-31 01:12:21 PM

TwistedFark: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

Don't forget about market cap too.

COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?

Console ownership has reached saturation. At this point, everyone who is going to own a console owns one already. Publishers are going to be fighting for the same scraps from the table, so they won't be able to just spend more money on a single product for a big pay day, they'll have to diversify - then they'll run into their next problem, all they've been able to sell for the last decade is one rythm game and a bunch of FPS's with cover mechanics. Whooo boy. Good luck growing that.


this is not only not true, but since there are next gen consoles on the horizon, simply foolish to state out loud.
 
2012-07-31 01:13:24 PM

UrCa: You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side


I think this is the thing that is so hard for people to grasp - It's not about a single person playing 100 games, it's about 100 people who wouldn't pick up a console playing a single game. The pure enormity of the size of the consumer base for mobile devices ensure diversity in terms of useful apps.
 
2012-07-31 01:15:15 PM

TwistedFark: UrCa: You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side

I think this is the thing that is so hard for people to grasp - It's not about a single person playing 100 games, it's about 100 people who wouldn't pick up a console playing a single game. The pure enormity of the size of the consumer base for mobile devices ensure diversity in terms of useful apps.


Yes their entire revenue over the last 4 years is the same as one franchise on the console.
 
2012-07-31 01:16:34 PM

Doublespeak: TwistedFark: Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.

The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 595x244]
/hotlinked

I never said there wasn't a demand or that apps one the app store don't make money. I was simply pointing out that you are foolish for thinking the console game market is going away anytime soon.


Oh c'mon, I totally busted your argument even after you walked out a response just to yourself trying to claim that COD has made more money by itself than the entire apple app store.

Also, I never said it was going away anytime soon. I just said that companies are going to slow down their investment in it because it's not the most lucrative market anymore. Eventually this will just dovetail into making these devices obsolete - probably his next generation of consoles will be the last.
 
2012-07-31 01:16:46 PM
I think we will see a rebranding certain gaming consoles in the coming years. They wont be sold just as gaming consoles. I think they will be become more like a must have internet entertainment system for your TV. It will be used mostly for apps, TV, DVR and games you can download. Something like Apple TV with exclusive games and fancy hand motion remotes. There will be no disc drives that open or close.

Then eventually it will sold with your TV. Your HD TV will become a huge Ipad with hand motion remotes. Then comes the holographic 3D Olfaction TV.

Ta-da
 
2012-07-31 01:18:56 PM

Theory Of Null: I think we will see a rebranding certain gaming consoles in the coming years. They wont be sold just as gaming consoles. I think they will be become more like a must have internet entertainment system for your TV. It will be used mostly for apps, TV, DVR and games you can download. Something like Apple TV with exclusive games and fancy hand motion remotes. There will be no disc drives that open or close.

Then eventually it will sold with your TV. Your HD TV will become a huge Ipad with hand motion remotes. Then comes the holographic 3D Olfaction TV.

Ta-da


This is actually pretty likely. You probably won't even "install" anything. It'll just be streamed from a cloud server someplace local.

/dunno about the smell-o-vision however.
 
2012-07-31 01:20:24 PM
The console video game market which overwhelmingly relies on retail game sales has fallen nearly thirty percent year-to-year. This is not a matter of "tail end of a console cycle". The end of previous console cycles typically yielded stagnant growth. The last time sales were down this hard, it was 1984. Meanwhile, the cost of producing, marketing, and developing a console video game has no doubt doubled over the last decade, and the cost is going to continue increasing, since we all know that the major game publishers are not going to use better game engines to rein in costs. It only becomes worse when you realize that middle-tier developers are moving their assets to mobile and computer platforms, leaving you to directly compete with Electronic Arts and Activision. Consoles are not competing with mobile phone platforms unless you think the Nintendo Wii was not a fad, and that Nintendo Wii adopters would not have jumped for the crappy mobile and browser games without Wii Sports as an intermediary. They're competing with computers, which offer the profit margins which are necessary for continued development of computer and console games as we know them, great graphics, appealing mechanics and all.

The companies that continue to move headlong into the console video game market do it because their identity rests on it (Activision with Call of Duty, Microsoft and Sony with their hardware, etc.). Everybody else is going to get off the sinking ship.

Theory Of Null: I think we will see a rebranding certain gaming consoles in the coming years. They wont be sold just as gaming consoles. I think they will be become more like a must have internet entertainment system for your TV. It will be used mostly for apps, TV, DVR and games you can download. Something like Apple TV with exclusive games and fancy hand motion remotes. There will be no disc drives that open or close.


That's already happening. People who enjoy console games are going to be mighty disappointed when they see the marketing approach of the Xbox 1080 With Cheese. They're no longer going to be game devices that fulfill entertainment functions, but the other way around.
 
kab
2012-07-31 01:22:58 PM

Rwa2play: I yearn for the day that PC gaming is front and center again.


I used to think this too, but it's never going to happen because the PC's 'golden age' is over.

Outside of some still-worthwhile exceptions, the days of you creating your own content and mods, extending the shelf life of a great game, and hosting your own games with your own rules is history. Companies have learned that removing all these things actually yields a lot more money, so that level of control is never coming back.

I'd actually argue that the golden age of video gaming itself is over. Top rated titles are becoming more expensive to produce, partially because current econo-derp theory demands that the next title sell more than the last one. Which leads to tired, incremental sequels of proven sellers rather than risk on something new.

And the supposed new, next big thing (mobile) is simply more rehashing of the same shiat folks have been playing for decades as well, just on a smaller screen with a less intuitive control scheme. And consumers are either old enough to realize this and laugh about it, or young enough to think that it's something actually innovative.

Game over.
 
2012-07-31 01:26:25 PM

kab: Outside of some still-worthwhile exceptions, the days of you creating your own content and mods, extending the shelf life of a great game, and hosting your own games with your own rules is history. Companies have learned that removing all these things actually yields a lot more money, so that level of control is never coming back.


http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/
 
2012-07-31 01:37:18 PM

TwistedFark: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7241894/78416692#c78416692" target="_blank">Theory Of Null</a>:</b> <i>
Then eventually it will sold with your TV. Your HD TV will become a huge Ipad with hand motion remotes. Then comes the holographic 3D Olfaction TV.

Ta-da</i>

This is actually pretty likely. You probably won't even "install" anything. It'll just be streamed from a cloud server someplace local.

/dunno about the smell-o-vision however.

Definitely.
Yeah I think smell-o-vision will be optional for commercials and other novelties.
 
2012-07-31 01:44:39 PM

you have pee hands: I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

I would buy all of them, because they're all profitable and I have $20 to spend. This is both the obvious answer and the correct analogy. You're creating a false dilemma. The market can clearly support both Call of Duty and Angry Birds - they're already there. They'll continue to be there. They'll continue to both make money. The gaming market is enormously bigger than it was 10 years ago and it's not just because of consoles or just because of casual games.

The line between consoles and general purpose computers may continue to blur more and more but there will still be big expensive games and cheap simple games regardless of platform.


Well put
 
2012-07-31 01:52:41 PM
You want to see something interesting?

kyoshiaki.sakura.ne.jp

The DSi/3DS just got something called Petit Computer, and besides being able to write your own programs with it's own version of BASIC, it also lets you trade them wirelessly, or put them out to other Petit users, by QR codes. Aside from it's own niche, what if this inspires people to start releasing little indie games the same way? Make a player for the mobile OSs out there, and you can just print however many QRs needed to load the game. I already have a few games for my DSi's Petit Computer scanned off of the 'net, and as soon as I get the hang of BASIC again, I might attempt to write a program or two for it.
 
2012-07-31 01:59:29 PM

TwistedFark: UrCa: You could develop hundreds at a time and have them running concurrently, except no one is playing 100 mobile games side by side

I think this is the thing that is so hard for people to grasp - It's not about a single person playing 100 games, it's about 100 people who wouldn't pick up a console playing a single game. The pure enormity of the size of the consumer base for mobile devices ensure diversity in terms of useful apps.


It's 100 people playing your game, though. And you're competing against things like videogame emulators which can run hundreds of games more than you can for free (although the legality is questionable), or something simple like sudoku/tetris for people who don't care for fancier games, and your other fancy game rivals (Draw Something, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, etc.). All of these serve to shrink your available pool of potential buyers, so while you've got that 60m smartphone market, it's already shrunk down from people doing other things or people just not delving much into the app market at all (My mom, for example, has three apps: our bank's, Mah Jong, and Gas Buddy. That's all she wants or needs). Don't forget you also have the free ad-supported version, so you have to keep releasing new levels to keep those people coming back for more ad revenue. You don't just release a game like this and be done with it, if that were the case, Angry Birds would be long dead by now after everyone finished the first 3 sets of levels.
 
2012-07-31 02:09:18 PM

TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

Companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft will hold onto their consoles, but we'll see less games with 100 million dollar production budgets for these devices since the cost/benefit of sinking that much lucre into a title won't be able to compete with the profit margin on mobile gaming apps.

As for PC gaming... we're in a bit of a renassance right now and I think it'll only get better. We're getting to the point that the tools used to create games have gotten so advanced that you don't need 100 people to put together a competitive title anymore. Pretty soon it'll come full circle again and some future hundred million dollar game will be developed by some guy in his moms basement - just like the first one was.


So let's see here. If i want immersive, beautifully rendered gaming environments rather than simplistic arcade games that will play on the limited computing power of my phone or tablet may options are:
r spend $60 the game and $2-300 for a gaming console (that also works with all my streaming video services) and plug it into my 50" widescreen

-or-

Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?

and you seriously believe PC gaming will be the wave of the future?
 
2012-07-31 02:20:42 PM

Magorn: So let's see here. If i want immersive, beautifully rendered gaming environments rather than simplistic arcade games that will play on the limited computing power of my phone or tablet may options are:
r spend $60 the game and $2-300 for a gaming console (that also works with all my streaming video services) and plug it into my 50" widescreen

-or-

Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?

and you seriously believe PC gaming will be the wave of ...


That's about the only thing that irks me about PC gaming is the cost, but if you've got the money to burn I feel like it's worth it (although those could just be rose tinted glasses I'm looking through). I was watching my nephew play Skyrim on his Xbox over the weekend. The load times were painful and the graphics were like playing it on worst settings for PC.

/I learned that you could rotate the models during load screens
//He looked at me like I had just crawled out from under a rock after 20 years
///I showed him load times on my PC with the HD textures pack and various other aesthetic mods and all he said was "Oh..."
 
2012-07-31 02:25:38 PM

Magorn: Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?

and you seriously believe PC gaming will be the wave of the future?


Top twenty most-played games on Xfire consist of the following: League of Legends, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, World of Warcraft, Call of Duty 2, Minecraft, Diablo III, Battlefield 3, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, World of Tanks, Dota 2, StarCraft II, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Star Wars: The Old Republic, Team Fortress 2, Heroes of Newerth, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike: Source, Medal of Honor Allied Assault, Aion, Halo.

PC gaming is no longer what it used to be. The problem with PC gaming has nothing to do with hardware, more that most of the games on that list are average or not very good at all.
 
2012-07-31 02:27:30 PM
Isn't there a bit of a hardware limitation at play here too? I was under the impression that most smart phones couldn't sustain long periods of gaming due to battery life. Thus, if you're looking for something to play longer than it takes to stand in line or have a bowel movement, mobile devices weren't ready yet.

Or is this changing?
 
2012-07-31 02:34:44 PM
Meh, the next gen of consoles is just going to be a bigger general multimedia device, probably there will be a shift to more playstation store/xBox Live arcade distribution and less "stick the disk in the slot to proceed", but other than that meh, they're going to be basically the same set of functions imbedded in the same type of self-contained box with the same set of cost- and convenience-advantages over using and general PC and the same graphics and customization downsides.

That said, I'll still probably buy at least one of the next generation consoles, especially if it's properly backwards-compatible. A single 200$ box to run Netflix, play DVDs/BLURay/Whatever, run network-shared media off the PC on a bigger screen, play games, and occasionally buy games run on simple controls that I don't have to farking remap every time?

Not god's gift to gamers or anything, but that's a pretty good deal for everything in that one box.

//Albeit if we see a price point on the order of 300+, nope, I can wire together a dvd player, the older systems I already have, a TV, and a connection to the cable box. It will annoy me and look messy, but I'm not dishing out almost half a grand for an amped-up iPad with a better controller.
 
2012-07-31 02:45:52 PM
I hoping for another Half-Life game. I feel like Valve thinks they need a new console to do it justice. I don't know but I've been jonesing hard for a while now.
 
2012-07-31 02:53:23 PM

Magorn: Shell out $1000-$1500 every three years or so in the hopes that I selected the right hardware (and the right graphics card manufacturer) to play the latest release at a decent frame rate without issues on my 26" lcd monitor?


And how about detecting IRQ ports and then you have to make sure you have the right SCSI cable and then OF COURSE your computer only has two parallel ports so you have to unplug your printer every time you want to plug in your gamepad.
 
2012-07-31 03:05:39 PM
My 2 cents is that computer gaming is going to be very big over the next decade. I'm not saying this as a PC fanboy, but as someone who owns every major platform and games on them all.

The Achilles heel of PC gaming since its dawn were the hardware's lifespan and cost. In the 80s and 90s you could spend $3000 on a system, and within 3 years it would be obsolete - if you were lucky. In the 00s the price of hardware came down, but it would still only last a few years before an overhaul was required.

In recent years, I find this is no longer the case. I got my PC almost 3 years ago now, and while I may not be able to play games on the maximum setting, I do not concern myself if they will meet the requirements or not. Factor in the lower cost of titles, not to mention free to play, and the future for consoles is not bright at all.
 
2012-07-31 03:06:04 PM

TwistedFark: natmar_76: Have you done the math, and realized that Angry Birds at 15 million sales or so is only about $40,000,000 net profit, while one blockbuster big budget title at 20 million sales is $600,000,000 profit? Did you research the that Rovio's total 2012 profit including merch was only $100,000,00, far less than even one of Nintendo's big titles much less their entire stable of releases in a single year? Then did you further realize that Rovio is the one anomaly in the mobile equation, and no one else even comes close to that, and then further even than that, that it means profitability in the mobile space is razor thin? Have you read how many mobile developers have gone under?

Rovio makes about $80 million dollars a year from their stupid Angry Birds franchise. Do you know how much it cost to develop that game? $140,000.

Call of Duty: Black Ops is the best selling video game of all time. It made over 1 billion (yes, $1,000,000,000) dollars. It took 2 years to develop, cost nearly 200 million dollars in development and marketing costs.

To put it succinctly:

Angry Birds: Paid 571 to 1 for Rovio.
Call of Duty: Black Ops Paid 5 to 1 for Activision.

It's actually worse than that for Activision, because it took them 2 years to develop so their cash was tied up.

Also, the numbers don't even tell the whole story. You're not thinking like a businessman or an investor - a big part of this equation here is risk. If you're running your business off these big numbers, all it takes is one flop and you're gone. Just look at what is happening to Take Two Interactive right now (parent company of Rockstar). They sunk 105 million dollars into Max Payne 3 and then just moved 440k units in the first month. Their share price has dropped from almost 16 dollars right before the release, to currently 9 dollars. They lost almost half of their valuation because of one flop.

Business investors are naturally risk averse. The current triple-A title model of gaming is about as risky as ...


How many other Angry Birds games are there out there? Did you see Zynga's financials?
 
2012-07-31 03:06:23 PM

TwistedFark: Doublespeak: TwistedFark: Doublespeak: the entire Apple App Store in its entire lifespan has brought in around $4 billion in revenue. That's all apps combined since 2008 (Apple doesn't have profit data on all those app makers).

Nintendo brought in around $12 billion in revenue in 2011 alone.

Imagining a larger cap and one being there in reality are two different things. The revenue of handheld devices for gaming is miniscule compared to consoles and the pc market. The lemonade stand is a perfect example.

The Apple App store makes 250 million dollars a month. It's held that pace for the last 8 months in a row. It also only controls 50% (and diminishing) share of the entire app market (it is quickly being gobbled up by Google and Microsoft).

This is also, what? A 4 year old industry?

Yes sir, there is absolutely no demand there.

[c2499022.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com image 595x244]
/hotlinked

I never said there wasn't a demand or that apps one the app store don't make money. I was simply pointing out that you are foolish for thinking the console game market is going away anytime soon.

Oh c'mon, I totally busted your argument even after you walked out a response just to yourself trying to claim that COD has made more money by itself than the entire apple app store.
.


My argument that there is more money by far in console games right now, yah anyways kid.....umm no/
 
2012-07-31 03:16:42 PM

HeartBurnKid: rocky_howard: Yeah, but Angry Birds is the ONLY game having that numbers. It's the utmost example of mobile gaming. Not even close to what the average/media game does

Bejeweled, Plants Vs. Zombies, Cut the Rope, Fruit Ninja, Doodle Jump, Draw Something, Words With Friends... maybe not quite Angry Birds numbers, but enough to put traditional console games to shame.

Wear your blinders at your own peril. We are the niche, and we always have been. Publishers are starting to realize that.


PopCap makes a few of those (notably Bejeweled and PvZ). They bring in about $100 million a year to EA.

Zynga's stock price just dropped by nearly 50% because their revenue is dropping. They're around a billion dollar a year company if they manage to right their ship

Rovio only pulled in $100 million last year.

As a comparison, EA Sports alone pulled in about $4 billion last year.
 
2012-07-31 03:22:14 PM
You bring up a good point about the lack of needing so many people to create mobile games, however my counterpoint is:

You still need good writers. Jesus christ, some of these newer mobile games are really impressive until you start reading the plot, or dialogue, or hearing it. It's terrible. Names are terrible, grammar and spelling errors, etc. This is a result of what you said.

I'm looking at you Dead Trigger.

TwistedFark: Consoles are a dying breed.

Tablets and mobile devices like the iPad are going to cannibalize the gaming market for the upcoming decade. Hell if you just take a moment to look aound, this isn't something that's comming, it's already here. Say hello to your $1.99 "app" gaming overlords.

People have to remember that gaming these days is a numbers/margin driven exercise. The reason why consoles are so prolific is because of their low price point - and its created a huge market for games. Now with smart phones and tablet devices being ubquitous in modern life, the potential market of for games has just grown exponentially.

Companies like Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft will hold onto their consoles, but we'll see less games with 100 million dollar production budgets for these devices since the cost/benefit of sinking that much lucre into a title won't be able to compete with the profit margin on mobile gaming apps.

As for PC gaming... we're in a bit of a renassance right now and I think it'll only get better. We're getting to the point that the tools used to create games have gotten so advanced that you don't need 100 people to put together a competitive title anymore. Pretty soon it'll come full circle again and some future hundred million dollar game will be developed by some guy in his moms basement - just like the first one was.

 
2012-07-31 03:23:41 PM

HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?


Your illustrative comparison doesn't really illustrate anything. Here's a more reasonable comparison:

You've saved up $1,000,000 for retirement.

I give you the chance to buy 200 bonds, each costing $1. There's about a 1% chance that one of these bonds will return $1,000.

Or, you can invest $1,000,000 in bonds which return an average 4% rate of return.
 
2012-07-31 03:24:45 PM

HeartBurnKid: Doublespeak: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

If i said here you can have $40 million in profit from Angry Birds or 1 Billion from Call of Duty which would you take?

If I can make 100 games like Angry Birds for the price of 1 Call of Duty, I'll take the Angry Birds.


That's the entire argument: you can't make 100 games like Angry Birds because there's been exactly one like it ever.
 
2012-07-31 03:35:09 PM

meanmutton: That's the entire argument: you can't make 100 games like Angry Birds because there's been exactly one like it ever.


Crush the Castle?

/alternatively, Angry Birds Rio?
 
2012-07-31 03:43:15 PM

stuhayes2010: PS2 games were $50
PS3 games are $60
I will not shell out $70 for PS4 games. Plus, the PS3 (and I imagine XBOX 360) has had a real lackluster game library. It has not justified its $400 initial investment.


You do realize PS3's play Blu Rays, right?

Well worth the money.
 
2012-07-31 03:55:54 PM
I think consoles aren't going to go anywhere both figurative and literally.

It took Sony and Microsoft until very recently to start making money on this generation of machines; that's including the cost per title/update they take from publishers. This generation is now 7 years old. So people expecting the XB720 or PS4 to deliver something akin to a modern, high end, gaming PC in terms of graphics are probably in for a shock. Both companies are well aware that Nintendo released something with around the PS2's capabilities, sold it with a profit per machine and pretty much raked it in; their new machine seems equal to a 360 and will again be sold at a profit.

I foresee the XB720 delivering pretty much the same graphics quality as the 360, just at native 1080P. The cost to go again with fresh silicon for everything as was done previously... just isn't something either company want on the balance books any more. It's not like the studios really want super duper improvements either, costs are so high in making a AAA title that a single one not selling well can end a studio. And really, do gamers want the 720/PS4 around for 15 - 20 years simply because that's how long it'll take Sony/MS to make the development costs back?

But as to the consoles themselves, no... they aren't going anywhere any time soon and their demise has been shouted about since the Atari 2600.
 
2012-07-31 04:02:47 PM

meanmutton: HeartBurnKid: Doublespeak: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

If i said here you can have $40 million in profit from Angry Birds or 1 Billion from Call of Duty which would you take?

If I can make 100 games like Angry Birds for the price of 1 Call of Duty, I'll take the Angry Birds.

That's the entire argument: you can't make 100 games like Angry Birds because there's been exactly one like it ever.


Nor can you guarantee that your 1 game will be like Call of Duty. But having 100 games amortizes that risk a bit.
 
2012-07-31 04:05:19 PM

frepnog: TwistedFark: HeartBurnKid: Russky: Still significantly better than Angry Birds. You've read to many articles that have mistaken ROI for total profit and not been able to separate the two.

No one is arguing that Angry Birds has a great ROI, probably one of the best ever, but that isn't the same as total revenue/profit.

No, it's not. ROI is more important.

I give you the chance to buy 10 bonds, each worth $1, that will return $2 in 30 days. Or, you can buy a bond worth $10, that will return $15 in 30 days. Obviously, the revenue you'll get in 30 days is greater with the $10. Even the profit margin is greater with the $10. But which would you buy?

Don't forget about market cap too.

COD can sell 25 million units and make X number of dollars.

But that's all it can ever sell. The market cap on it is the number of people that own compatable devices. The market cap on people who own smart phones or touch pads is somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 times larger than that?

Console ownership has reached saturation. At this point, everyone who is going to own a console owns one already. Publishers are going to be fighting for the same scraps from the table, so they won't be able to just spend more money on a single product for a big pay day, they'll have to diversify - then they'll run into their next problem, all they've been able to sell for the last decade is one rythm game and a bunch of FPS's with cover mechanics. Whooo boy. Good luck growing that.

this is not only not true, but since there are next gen consoles on the horizon, simply foolish to state out loud.


And how many people who buy those next gen consoles are going to be first-time console buyers, as opposed to upgraders?
 
2012-07-31 04:14:19 PM
I think the gaming industry is doing pretty well these days. The $60 price tag can come down when a game isnt doing as well, and for the most part those companies are still round, and doing pretty damn well for themselves.

What will kill it is fans who play the violin for the game companies over why we can;t expect more in a next generation. What will kill it is charging too much for each game when a lot of people are having trouble as it is making ends meet. Sell at an affordable price and sell more, is better than being a greedy son of a biatch. We don't need fan/cosumer's shooting themselves (and us too) in the foot. Dont worry about Activisons bottom line...how about worrying about yours first.
 
2012-07-31 04:15:17 PM
kab

"Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked. The future consumer is just not going to accept that"

I'm assuming that quote is FTA? Pretty stupid line for the author to throw in, when the average life of a cell phone is ~1 year.
 
2012-07-31 04:20:05 PM
I wouldn't look to PC gaming to save everything. As much as I buy titles off steam I've pirated more. My last 3 computers have paid for themselves if you count the cost of software I've gotten for free. I buy quite a bit now as well since I started making more money, but anything over 30 dollars is still going to get pirated.
 
2012-07-31 04:25:11 PM
With the ability to plug in a PS3 controller into the Nexus 7, I'd like to see what kinda games can be designed for it. No worthless touch screen controls.
 
2012-07-31 04:58:23 PM
Because PC gaming is far superior to nooby console noobs.

insertsnarkyusername:

Fark you, you're the reason we have to deal with draconian DRM.
 
2012-07-31 05:02:24 PM

Rockstone: insertsnarkyusername:

Fark you, you're the reason we have to deal with draconian DRM.


The funny thing is that his mere existence is proof positive that draconian DRM is useless.
 
2012-07-31 05:03:15 PM
I am someone who will soon be amongst the ranks of the Glorious PC master gaming race.

4.bp.blogspot.com

I've got a PS3 that I love but the graphics are nowhere near what the PC versions are, not to mention the sweet, sweet mods.

I have been trying to find decent games for the PS3 for a while now. I buy the new OMGLOOKATME titles and am just not that impressed with the games available. I have basically been replaying RDR, GTA V, Just Cause 2, FO3, and FONV for almost four years now.

And yes, I have already ordered GTA V, FO3, and FONV for my new gaming PC.

The lack of RDR for PC makes me a little stabby.
 
2012-07-31 05:24:05 PM

Ed Finnerty: I am someone who will soon be amongst the ranks of the Glorious PC master gaming race.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x391]

I've got a PS3 that I love but the graphics are nowhere near what the PC versions are, not to mention the sweet, sweet mods.

I have been trying to find decent games for the PS3 for a while now. I buy the new OMGLOOKATME titles and am just not that impressed with the games available. I have basically been replaying RDR, GTA V, Just Cause 2, FO3, and FONV for almost four years now.

And yes, I have already ordered GTA V, FO3, and FONV for my new gaming PC.

The lack of RDR for PC makes me a little stabby.


I think it comes down to having both if you want the best gaming experience. I'll take Total War and Civ 5 on the PC, but if I only had a PC I would have missed RDR which is one of my favorite games.
 
2012-07-31 06:10:24 PM
static.fimfiction.net


Ten thousand years old. Improves hand-eye coordination and motor skills like crazy. Doesn't require electricity.

And the best part? No goddamned DRM to install.


/my lawn is immaculate. Either get off it or help me mow.
 
2012-07-31 06:39:46 PM
This is why I'm becoming a retro-gamer. I still like the single-player experience and I'm not interested in the always-on internet DRM, or any DRM for that matter past the install.

Over the past 4 years, the system I've bought the most games for is the Game Boy Advance. It's the reason I got a DSlite, so I could play those games. I grew up on the SNES, so it's a nice throwback to those days. It was an underrated system and I'm having a lot of fun. The DS is pretty good, too, and Super Scribblenauts is a must-have.

I do have a Wii and PS2, and I still play both and will continue to play them until I run out of games, and thanks to Amazon that won't happen for a while.

If I want PC games, I'll simply pop over to gog.com and either pick up and old classic I missed out on or even something newer. I'm a huge fan of the Humble Bundle and still haven't played through everything I got with the latest one. And the great thing is that every game I want to play will work on my reasonably-priced laptop from Wal-Mart. Even if I can't crank it up to 11, it gets the job done. One day I might upgrade the RAM, but that's probably all I'll need to do.

So I might be missing out on the newest games, but I'll just console myself with my stacks of great retro and indie games.
 
2012-07-31 06:55:14 PM

HeartBurnKid: Rockstone: insertsnarkyusername:

Fark you, you're the reason we have to deal with draconian DRM.

The funny thing is that his mere existence is proof positive that draconian DRM is useless.


Actually, the titles that have really severe DRM I tend to pirate out of sheer principle. On the other hand, I also drop a lot of money at GOG which is DRM free. Here's the thing, when I buy a game I'm not actually paying for a game. I'm paying for a good download speed, a bug free copy, support and online storage of the titles I'm not currently playing. I can already find whatever I want for free, I'm paying for the stuff I don't get through pirating.
 
2012-07-31 09:05:47 PM
I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.
 
2012-07-31 09:08:51 PM
Most console gamers don't care if they can use keyboard/mouse.

Hence why they don't add support.
 
2012-07-31 11:27:20 PM

the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.


The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.
 
2012-07-31 11:34:54 PM

soporific: the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.

The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.


I'm curious, what games do you use it for? I've played many different consoles and it may be that I grew up as a pc gamer but nothing seems as intuitive or flexible as a key board and a mouse to me.
 
2012-08-01 12:34:02 AM

insertsnarkyusername: soporific: the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.

The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.

I'm curious, what games do you use it for? I've played many different consoles and it may be that I grew up as a pc gamer but nothing seems as intuitive or flexible as a key board and a mouse to me.


GTA, for example. In general, joypads are better for third person games. But nothing comes close to mouse+KB for first person ones.
 
2012-08-01 12:53:32 AM

rocky_howard: insertsnarkyusername: soporific: the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.

The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.

I'm curious, what games do you use it for? I've played many different consoles and it may be that I grew up as a pc gamer but nothing seems as intuitive or flexible as a key board and a mouse to me.

GTA, for example. In general, joypads are better for third person games. But nothing comes close to mouse+KB for first person ones.


I've been looking for a controller so I can emulate ps2 and N64 games. The keyboard just doesn't work for them and mouse support is spotty at best. What do you use?
 
2012-08-01 02:02:10 AM

Lanadapter: Most console gamers don't care if they can use keyboard/mouse.

Hence why they don't add support.


The Xbox was built off windows and has a USB port. They deliberately REMOVED keyboard and mouse support - because those playing with a keyboard and mouse utterly destroy those playing with a shatty arse gamepad. They want there players to be on a level playing field

They spent money REMOVING support for a peripheral.
 
2012-08-01 05:42:06 AM
Consoles are expensive single use devices with a built-in time to be junked.

A PS3 won't just play games, it'll also let you play browse the web, play LoveFilm, BBC iPlayer, play Blu-Rays, YouTube and so forth. You pay £190, plug it in and it works. It's cheap, simple and does the computing that many people want in their living room.

I think the next challenge for consoles is that they just won't offer enough to enough people out there to upgrade.
 
2012-08-01 07:18:27 AM

Khellendros: "The Blair Witch Project" wasn't the model for movies going forward, but it did open a new sub-market that does well on its own. It's not going to get rid of future "Avatar" and "The Dark Knight" level productions.


But `the blair witch project` was crap and you only found that out AFTER you paid your money and were looking at the screen, by which time it was too late, they came. This is the problem stated. There will still be all the good titles coming out but they will be drowned in a sea of crap...
 
2012-08-01 11:09:32 AM

dready zim: There will still be all the good titles coming out but they will be drowned in a sea of crap...


Yeah, if your only way to find out what's available is checking the top 25 of a proprietary app store. For the rest of the intelligent world, they can read consumer reviews, watch youtube videos, visit the Steam store, talk to knowledgeable friends, check Amazon reviews, visit other aggregate consumer review sites, and so on.
 
2012-08-01 11:50:56 AM

insertsnarkyusername: I've been looking for a controller so I can emulate ps2 and N64 games. The keyboard just doesn't work for them and mouse support is spotty at best. What do you use?


I use this lovely little baby:

http://www.amazon.com/High-Speed-Dual-Ps2-Controller-Converter/dp/B00 0 F6BGXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343836171&sr=8-1&keywords=ps2+joypad+to +usb

It lets you connect 2 PS2 joypads through USB. I've had it for at least 8 years and not a single problem ever.

Alternatively, Windows Vista/7 natively support the XBOX360 joypads.
 
2012-08-01 11:52:57 AM
Now with linky goodness

I don't know why Fark does this shiat that separates URL with random spaces.... It's annoying.
 
2012-08-01 11:54:30 AM
Jeez... it doesn't work either...

Here you go in two versions:

Linky version

Direct version: http://amzn.to/NJgCbH
 
2012-08-01 12:21:34 PM

insertsnarkyusername: soporific: the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.

The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.

I'm curious, what games do you use it for? I've played many different consoles and it may be that I grew up as a pc gamer but nothing seems as intuitive or flexible as a key board and a mouse to me.


Platformers and action titles. If it's a console port on PC, then I'll use the controller. Using the arrow keys for an action platformer is just awkward for me.

However, a FPS or RPG will mean mouse and keyboard. I also use mouse and keyboard for MMO games.

Every game is different and it depends on what type of controller feels more natural.
 
2012-08-01 12:47:44 PM

soporific: insertsnarkyusername: soporific: the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.

The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.

I'm curious, what games do you use it for? I've played many different consoles and it may be that I grew up as a pc gamer but nothing seems as intuitive or flexible as a key board and a mouse to me.

Platformers and action titles. If it's a console port on PC, then I'll use the controller. Using the arrow keys for an action platformer is just awkward for me.

However, a FPS or RPG will mean mouse and keyboard. I also use mouse and keyboard for MMO games.

Every game is different and it depends on what type of controller feels more natural.


upload.wikimedia.org
This needed two joysticks, one for aiming and one for strafing. Goddamn those were two damn fine games (Descent 3 sucked and was the Crysis of its day, crushing anything but the highest end systems into dust).
 
2012-08-01 02:01:59 PM

Trocadero:
This needed two joysticks, one for aiming and one for strafing. Goddamn those were two damn fine games (Descent 3 sucked and was the Crysis of its day, crushing anything but the highest end systems into dust).


I had good times playing Descent on a single joystick with the pitch, yaw and roll on the stick itself, and strafing 8 directions with the POV hat on top.

Man, that takes me back.
 
2012-08-01 04:28:21 PM

insertsnarkyusername: rocky_howard: insertsnarkyusername: soporific: the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.

The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.

I'm curious, what games do you use it for? I've played many different consoles and it may be that I grew up as a pc gamer but nothing seems as intuitive or flexible as a key board and a mouse to me.

GTA, for example. In general, joypads are better for third person games. But nothing comes close to mouse+KB for first person ones.

I've been looking for a controller so I can emulate ps2 and N64 games. The keyboard just doesn't work for them and mouse support is spotty at best. What do you use?


If you're looking to play N64 (or Genesis or Saturn) games, the best pad to use, IMHO, is the Saitek Rumble Force. One look will tell you why:

images.amazon.com

Unfortunately, it's discontinued, but you can still find them on Amazon or eBay. It's also DirectInput, so you'll need a wrapper (like X360CE) to use it for XInput games.
 
2012-08-01 04:46:51 PM
Thanks for all the recommendations guys. I'll keep them in mind.
 
2012-08-02 10:21:25 AM

HeartBurnKid: insertsnarkyusername: rocky_howard: insertsnarkyusername: soporific: the money is in the banana stand: I still don't understand why consoles have yet to FULLY adopt the use of a mouse + keyboard as a peripheral option for ALL games.

The same reason I have a USB gamepad for my computer.

I'm curious, what games do you use it for? I've played many different consoles and it may be that I grew up as a pc gamer but nothing seems as intuitive or flexible as a key board and a mouse to me.

GTA, for example. In general, joypads are better for third person games. But nothing comes close to mouse+KB for first person ones.

I've been looking for a controller so I can emulate ps2 and N64 games. The keyboard just doesn't work for them and mouse support is spotty at best. What do you use?

If you're looking to play N64 (or Genesis or Saturn) games, the best pad to use, IMHO, is the Saitek Rumble Force. One look will tell you why:

[images.amazon.com image 500x500]

Unfortunately, it's discontinued, but you can still find them on Amazon or eBay. It's also DirectInput, so you'll need a wrapper (like X360CE) to use it for XInput games.


it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off. you would be better served by buying the PS2 USB controller adapter, or simply splicing a USB cable to an old XBOX controller S.
 
2012-08-02 10:24:05 AM

frepnog: it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off.


Did I miss the PS2 Dual Shock with six face buttons?
 
2012-08-02 12:06:26 PM

HeartBurnKid: frepnog: it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off.

Did I miss the PS2 Dual Shock with six face buttons?


Sticking two more buttons on the face doesnt make it any less a dual shock knockoff.
 
2012-08-02 12:29:05 PM

frepnog: HeartBurnKid: frepnog: it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off.

Did I miss the PS2 Dual Shock with six face buttons?

Sticking two more buttons on the face doesnt make it any less a dual shock knockoff.


And stickign two...er...sticks doesn't make the PS controller any less of a SNES joypad knockoff.
 
2012-08-02 12:31:19 PM

frepnog: HeartBurnKid: frepnog: it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off.

Did I miss the PS2 Dual Shock with six face buttons?

Sticking two more buttons on the face doesnt make it any less a dual shock knockoff.


It does make it massively better for playing N64 (or Genesis or Saturn) games, however. Which was my point.
 
2012-08-02 01:27:26 PM

HeartBurnKid: frepnog: HeartBurnKid: frepnog: it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off.

Did I miss the PS2 Dual Shock with six face buttons?

Sticking two more buttons on the face doesnt make it any less a dual shock knockoff.

It does make it massively better for playing N64 (or Genesis or Saturn) games, however. Which was my point.


Or Capcom arcade games in Emulators
 
2012-08-02 01:32:22 PM

HeartBurnKid: frepnog: HeartBurnKid: frepnog: it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off.

Did I miss the PS2 Dual Shock with six face buttons?

Sticking two more buttons on the face doesnt make it any less a dual shock knockoff.

It does make it massively better for playing N64 (or Genesis or Saturn) games, however. Which was my point.


i don't see how you can say "massively" better. yes, the genny (well, the genny fight pad had 6 buttons, the standard had 3) and the saturn had 6 face buttons. which really helps in fighting games... a genre that largely sucks on pc, emulated or not. pretty much most other saturn and genny games used the "A" button, perhaps the "B" and little else. For N64 games, well, it was pretty much the same story. Which would explain why the "A" and "B" button on the controller were huge and the little bitty "C" buttons were hardly used by anything that wasn't Super Mario 64.

I have played games on all three consoles since they were originally launched. 6 face buttons really just weren't needed unless you played alot of 6 button fighting games. why do you think most modern controllers have 4 general face buttons??

So yeah, I see what you are saying as far as emulating the feel of the original consoles. but MASSIVELY better? not in any appreciable way, and sucks in some ways, especially since the thing is a PS2 dual shock knock off with the same incredibly shiatty, still-uncomfortable stick placement.
 
2012-08-02 01:34:20 PM

rocky_howard: frepnog: HeartBurnKid: frepnog: it is just a shiatty PS2 dual shock knock off.

Did I miss the PS2 Dual Shock with six face buttons?

Sticking two more buttons on the face doesnt make it any less a dual shock knockoff.

And stickign two...er...sticks doesn't make the PS controller any less of a SNES joypad knockoff.


the original PS controller was obviously an evolution of the SNES pad. no one can argue otherwise.
 
2012-08-02 01:53:55 PM

frepnog: So yeah, I see what you are saying as far as emulating the feel of the original consoles. but MASSIVELY better? not in any appreciable way, and sucks in some ways, especially since the thing is a PS2 dual shock knock off with the same incredibly shiatty, still-uncomfortable stick placement.


Wait... so your major complaint is that it shares the PS2's stick placement... and one of your counter-recommendations is to use a PS2 controller with a USB adapter? Somehow, I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Besides which, if your primary concern is retrogaming, it's doubtful that stick placement is going to be high on your list of priorities. And if it is, just get a wired 360 pad.
 
2012-08-02 02:34:39 PM

HeartBurnKid: frepnog: So yeah, I see what you are saying as far as emulating the feel of the original consoles. but MASSIVELY better? not in any appreciable way, and sucks in some ways, especially since the thing is a PS2 dual shock knock off with the same incredibly shiatty, still-uncomfortable stick placement.

Wait... so your major complaint is that it shares the PS2's stick placement... and one of your counter-recommendations is to use a PS2 controller with a USB adapter? Somehow, I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Besides which, if your primary concern is retrogaming, it's doubtful that stick placement is going to be high on your list of priorities. And if it is, just get a wired 360 pad.


yes the dual shock stick placement sucks.

and what I said was this - "you would be better served by buying the PS2 USB controller adapter, or simply splicing a USB cable to an old XBOX controller S."

better served because chances are great that you already OWN a PS2 pad. Not that it is in any way superior.
 
Displayed 197 of 197 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report