The NY Times is running a story about the effect Apple is having on the console gaming market, making Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo worry that consumers will be satisfied playing games on devices that aren't necessarily focused on gaming. Quoting:
"The concerns highlight an accelerating shift away from hard-core games, which have traditionally driven console sales, to more casual ones played on cellphones. Of the 758 new game titles shown at the Tokyo Game Show, 168 were for cellphone platforms — more than twice as many as in the previous year. ... Apple's assault could even eat into sales of home consoles like Nintendo's Wii, Sony's PlayStation 3 or Microsoft's XBox, as game-playing quickly becomes centered on cellphones. Many in the industry say that Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft need to explore more radical changes to their businesses, including an emphasis on software rather than hardware and a better way for users to download games. 'As a platform, the cellphone has the biggest potential, because everybody owns one,' said Kazumi Kitaue, chief executive at another game maker, Konami Digital Entertainment. A family with three children might buy just one Wii or PlayStation to share, but those children will probably have cellphones of their own and download and play games, Mr. Kitaue said."
It depends how much time you spend away from home... I also have a DS, but i usually forget to take it with me, i also have an ipod but again i always forgot to take it... I've had a phone for years, which i always remember to take with me so now when i find myself on or waiting for public transport, waiting for food, waiting for someone etc, i play games or listen to music on my phone. I would have my phone anyway, no point carrying around multiple devices.
Apple recognised that the increasing power of moder
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday September 26, @11:01PM (#29553279)
Seriously, have any of these people actually played any games on it? They are uniformly quite terrible. The lack of physical buttons is simply too big of an obstacle. Sure you can do some interesting stuff with the accelerometer, but at some point you want to be able to mash some buttons to kill the baddies and the in this regard the iPhone simply sucks ass.
You are aware that TF2 was written for PC, right? XBox was almost an afterthought.
...and it's clear Valve did just the opposite for Left 4 Dead. Seriously, not having the ability to choose your own server when the game launched, despite having a Dedicated Server program?
Even now, it's ten times easier for a group to join a random server than it is to join a specific one.
Seriously, have any of these people actually played any games on it? They are uniformly quite terrible. The lack of physical buttons is simply too big of an obstacle. Sure you can do some interesting stuff with the accelerometer, but at some point you want to be able to mash some buttons to kill the baddies and the in this regard the iPhone simply sucks ass.
You're obviously not the target demographic. I'm guessing that, in other discussions, you've said similar things regarding perceived shortcomings with the Wii.
The target demographic that's mainly interested in "mash[ing] some buttons to kill the baddies" is the group that's currently buying XBox 360s and Playstation 3s - and, based on sales, it's pretty obvious it's a significantly smaller group than the group buying the Wii and/or interested in playing short games that you can pick up for a short while and set down afterward. And, in the end, overall sales is really pretty much the only thing any of these companies care about.
I am not meaning (or attempting) to demean your opinion. I'm just pointing out that it's unlikely you're a reflection of the audience Apple is after.
I have a feeling that demographic doesn't really strike a lasting profit, however. Nintendo is slowly falling and has been for a few months - could the Wii's marketing be wearing off? Could the iPod Touch face the same downward curve?
Besides, while the Wii has had phenomenal sales, the other two consoles have still gathered an audience - numbers that most markets would BEG to have. The positive thing about the button mashers is that they're growing (gaming is very mainstream, even in the Xbox/PS3 variety) and they don't stop spending money. I mean, if the Xbox 360 and its failure rate (which may or may not be fixed; who knows) can lead the charge through the High-Definition consoles in this economic decline, what will get those gamers to stop spending money?
They make little to no money (and even lose money often) on the hardware itself. They make money because each title sold pays a license fee. It also indicates how well the owners like their gaming experience over all.
The wii was making profit on the hardware from day one, they only just now lowered the retail price three years after it's initial release.. they have been making lots off hardware alone
Yeah, open sourced games. Both of those were commercial at first and only opened later, those games have paid professionals working on their creation. Most unpaid open source games are horribly derivative and usually ugly and unintuitive.
I find a lot of commercial games have extremely buggy network play these days... I never got to finish a multiplayer game of rise of nations over the internet, because one player would always drop out for some reason and bring the whole game to an end.
Actually, I find that the mashing buttons to kill the baddies falls squarely on the Wii, while beer drinking FPS tournaments are 360's big thing, and heavily priced bizarre gameplay falls in the ps3 arena.
Regardless, the biggest issue seems to me to be basic economics. What is the cost of your entertainment. I've been interested in picking up a next gen console since the wii came out. I've played all three extensively, and at the moment, their price point is nearly identical. But for me to get one game out of a system, I need to drop about $300 for the base system WITHOUT any games, and $50 for a relatively old game (Mario Galaxy is still $50, 3 years in). With high quality games like Braid coming out on steam for $5-$20 the comparable initial drop of $20 to start playing and $350 to start playing is an obvious choice. Needless to say, despite the fact I've typically enjoyed console gaming for years, the higher price point for individual games combined with the cost of the systems (which haven't dropped to levels that I feel the purchase is justified), makes people who share this opinion swing away from them.
I still haven't swung toward cellphone games, because generally, across the board, I haven't found many of them that are on par with games from the super nintendo. Tetris maybe, but I haven't found a good solid push for thought provoking games for a cell. The biggest challenge for me is that the cost of old classics is finally pushing up into the current 'new game' price point that I have no interest in.
I'm mostly hoping this commentary will shed some light on the mindset of a, possibly atypical, non-hard-core gamer.
I guess I don't understand why people have that opinion on the 360. To me it seems to have the most diverse lineup. It has the most of what I care about (RPGs). The Wii falls short on pretty much any game category other than their well done first party games. But really, I still feel the wiimote is a gimmick...one that worked, mind you, but still a gimmick. I'd rather just have another button than have to waggle.
If I want a great multiplayer strategy game with complex rules and takes a lot of time to learn, I'll play that on my PC or Mac, if I want to blow a couple of hours in a racecar or fragging aliens in an FPS, then my console is pretty good at that. If I am on the bus and have 30 minutes, I might play Assasins Creed or bejewled on the iPhone. (or listen to a podcast, or watch a TV episode, or listen to music etc) Sometimes I even play board games with my kids and soccer outside. All sorts of games have their place and I hope none of them goes away.
It looks like you entirely missed the point. Whether or not you believe the games on the iPhone terrible, it's a sizable market, and it's not even a gaming device.
That seems to be a relatively short-sighted opinion, and clearly you're playing the wrong games (hint: ports of games from consoles that try to capture the same style of gameplay rarely work).
As someone who has been a gamer for a few decades now, as well as a happy iPhone owner, I can attest to the fact that the iPhone does indeed do video games well. That said, it obviously can't handle the same sorts of gameplay that consoles can handle, and, conversely, it can handle some gameplay that consoles are poorly-built to handle.
Consider Zen Bound [zenbound.com]. It's certainly a casual game, but the premise (using your fingers to rotate a 3D block of wood or metal in order to wrap a rope around as much of the shape as possible...just look at the video at the link) simply doesn't work well on any of the consoles at the moment. I was skeptical at first, but once I saw a few gameplay videos and then got my hands on it, I was sold; the game demonstrates a new form of play and is remarkably entertaining for such a simple concept
Or consider a game like Eliss [toucheliss.com]. Again, remarkably entertaining and yet incredibly simple in concept and execution. Both of these rely heavily on a multitouch interface (Eliss in particular) that none of the other consoles or handheld game devices could possibly hope to match (neither of these have a chance of working on the DS or Wii). When iPhone developers play to the iPhone's strengths, it really shines. When they try to shoehorn gameplay that was made for an entirely different medium, such as a console, into the device, it shows (and it usually sucks).
Really, it all comes back to what it has always been about: making games fun. Quite a few of the developers and console makers have gotten caught up in the shinier graphics, yearly releases on spent franchises, and other such nonsense that they've forgotten what real gamers (read: not "frat bros") want, which is to have a fun time. 8-bit games weren't fun in spite of the graphics. Rather, the only thing that the developers could feasibly work on to differentiate themselves was the gameplay of their product, so they were forced to innovate if they wanted to produce sales, and we saw quite a few brilliant and entertaining examples of new gameplay from that generation. The introduction of 3D with the 64-bit era really changed the game as well, since it allowed for new forms of gameplay, but since then, the industry has stagnated and very little has really changed in terms of the types of gameplay that we can expect.
The iPhone, for all of its foibles and drawbacks, is offering developers a chance to get in on the ground floor with something that's fresh, different, and entirely game-changing. And I'm not talking about the iPhone itself, but rather about multitouch. I honestly believe that multitouch has the potential to provide a more entertaining interface than that of any current console, so while the iPhone may be relegated to "casual" games for now (and it is), it certainly has the potential to explode in the "hardcore" market if a few hardcore titles showcasing multitouch come out. What those titles would be, I have no idea, otherwise I'd be building it now to make my millions.
I've only tried a few (on an iPod Touch, but the idea is the same). One was a driving game. You held the device a little bit like a steering wheel, turning it to make the car move. One was a variety of the Same Game. No buttons required; you touched items to make the disappear. I also played a port of Worms 2, which worked very well. The moving and aiming was a lot easier with the touchscreen than with a mouse and keyboard (I figured out the controls without reading the instructions, while last time I
First, I'm more of a casual gamer. Frankly, the $60 titles generally don't hold my attention anymore and I've found the Arcade (xbox 360) titles to be much more fun. I think I've kind of gotten sick of the "wow look at the graphics!" "genre".
That being said, when I do want to sit and waste an hour or two playing games, I want to do so in the comfort of my living room with a nice 46" screen. Not a 3 inch screen. I want to play with a controller built at least somewhat ergonomically, not one that feels like my thumbs are going to snap.
I will concede that _any_ new game "system" will pull customers away from some other company to at least some degree, but I seriously doubt the top players need to worry about the iWhatever taking over their industry.
Although, diversifying in your target market(s) isn't a bad idea.
Does the iPhone have many (any?) games that aren't of the simple silly cellphone variety? While there's a market for games like that, no doubt, there is also very clearly a market for games with more depth to them. Some of the top selling games are ones that have a good deal of complexity to them (the Sims being a great example), not the sort of thing that competes with a cellphone game.
Also, as you noted, the iPhone really isn't a competitor for a console just based off of the fact that it is a handheld. S
Ya know, two years ago, I did by a DS rather than the PS3. I had my stimulas check in hand, and I was ready to go...
Then I realized I could get a DS + GAMES GAMES GAMES for much less than the PS3 + No Games. I've not regretted it.:)
But then, I'm also happy with the Wii I bought myself for Christmas last year, and RockBand2 I purchased last week (it's way cheap cause they're making room for RB: Beatles). I've not missed having any of the NextGen Consoles, even those they look simply fabulous.
My mother has never played a game for more than 20 minutes in her life. However, she does have an iPhone, and every time we talk she has a new game on it to show me. Some of them are even mildly entertaining. I've talked to her about it, and she has no interest in stepping up to a real gaming machine, either portable or console. So there is some truth that people like her are "flocking" to the Iphone as a game console. However, there is NO truth that this is in any way a threat to established consoles.
Does the iPhone have many (any?) games that aren't of the simple silly cellphone variety? While there's a market for games like that, no doubt, there is also very clearly a market for games with more depth to them. Some of the top selling games are ones that have a good deal of complexity to them (the Sims being a great example), not the sort of thing that competes with a cellphone game. Simple answer, yes, big games companies are developing big games for it. When you put a machine more powerful than a wii
And here I was worried that I could play games without an annual contract to pay a telco every month. I mean, yeah, I could get an ipod touch, but wouldn't that be just like getting a DSi? Who would I pay every month? Gosh!
Everyone agrees that flatulence apps are not only worth paying for, they make having the AT&T contract worthwhile. Look how many people play WoW, clearly games are only fun if you're paying month to month, right?
Iphone and the Ipod touch at best can compete with the portable market (unless apple figures out how to make the devices plug into a 1080p HDTV)
I don't think the I-game is eating away market share because it's Apple, I think it's the entire package tied in with it. It's a gaming device, and it works with Itunes.
All Sony/Nintendo has to do to compete with this is write a DS/PSP Itunes sync program, and the problem's solved. Change the image of the DS/PSP from being mostly gaming devices, to a multifunction
i agree, portable it could but when you get home and want to play a game, which you gonna play, iphone/ipod on little 2inch-ish screen or on your big ass tv at home?
Or more to the point and a little better comparison.
When your kid wants to play games and say they have both an iWhatever and a Nintendo DS for example, which do you think they will pick up to play?
Having a game to play on your phone is great when you're at the doctors office waiting, but when it comes down to it, there are much better, dedicated systems, for playing mobile games. Just the control system on the iWhatever sucks for long term gaming and then you take into account the fact that game developer
"consumers will be satisfied playing games on devices that aren't necessarily focused on gaming."
So you mean like a PC? Back when the home computer market was growing and the Atari was collapsing I'm sure the console industry was wondering the same thing. Once they took back the market in the late 80s (thanks Nintendo) it seemed that as more people got multiple PCs in the home that a shift back to using devices that aren't consoles as our primary gaming systems seems inevitable.
Most people do not want to pay $300 for a video game console, and then $10-20 a week to rent games, or $50 to buy. Nor do they want to pay $1000 for a PC rig to play the advanced games. I myself preferred my gameboy for playing tetris or golf or other games. An advantage is that the games were very reasonably priced.
I think what apple is targeting is the cash strapped parent who kids want multiple mobile devices. Though $200 for an iphone or iPod touch might seem out of line for a kids first device, if it can serve as the personal computer for browsing, email, and reading, can text, take pictures and movies, and play some games, it might seem a good alternative to phone plus a psp plus a music player, etc.
Like the mac,which made graphic processing affordable, the advantage is likely to be short lived. It should be simple to get something like a PSP and add a phone and some other trinkets. If that can happen,then people will likely migrate to it. One thing that I am surprised to see is that MS is not integrating the Windows Mobile, xbox, and zune technology into single product. The fact that we are talking about MS Windows 7 and a new Zune to me is incompressible. A Zune that has and HDMI port, but cannot play games, is simply silly.
The iPhone's touchscreen is nice for some applications. But for general purpose gaming, you can't beat a regular controller. DS-style controls are unlikely to make an appearance on standard cellphones and this will keep gaming on cellphones to a minimum.
including an emphasis on software rather than hardware
They'd better not, because that's where their competitive advantage is. The only reason anyone would play on a console instead of on their phone is because of the hardware (including bigger screen, the controllers, etc). If they focus only on software, then eventually any type of software that can be made for a console can be made for a phone.
Anybody else here grow up during the 70s? 80s? 90s? Anybody else find the idea of Apple being any kind of force in gaming utterly bizarre?
Not saying it won't happen, or that Apple can't be a force in whatever field... but this is like "Ferrari, Lamborghini Worry Over Growing Competition From Oldsmobile" or something.
Based on every other product Apple has ever produced, a game console from them would be sleek, stylish, cost in excess of $900.00 (us), have only 3 titles available(each of which would require you to repurchase the title when a patch came out), and a controller with only button. Of course it would have an alternate means to use the button, but it would require you to press the option button on the console itself while trying to press the controller button.
Based on every other product Apple has ever produced, a game console from them would be sleek, stylish, cost in excess of $900.00 (us), have only 3 titles available(each of which would require you to repurchase the title when a patch came out), and a controller with only button. Of course it would have an alternate means to use the button, but it would require you to press the option button on the console itself while trying to press the controller button.
IMO, what they're most worried about are price points. The consumer mindset for cell phone games seems to top out at about $5, and a lot of games that, were they released on Xbox Live Arcade or the PlayStation Network might be $10, are $1-2 on the App Store.
The Nintendo DS version of Civilization Revolution was $30 at release. The Xbox 360 version was similarly priced.
The iPhone version is currently $5. It's essentially the same game. The controls aren't as good - and no one is saying that the other two don't have their place, because you don't always want to stare at a tiny screen. Developers have tried to put games for $10 on the App Store. While there's the occasional success, most of the time the reviews are filled with 1-star "$10 for a phone game?" reviews, and the game quickly shoots down the charts and out of the rankings and "Featured" lists.
Peggle for PC is still available for $10. It's the same price on the Xbox 360 (Live Arcade).
The iPhone version is $5.
The iPhone is causing people to shift their view as to an appropriate price point at the same time that many companies are trying to rip out a third of an otherwise complete Xbox or PS3 game so they can sell the rest as "Downloadable content" to squeeze that extra $5-10 out of each buyer. That, I believe, is terrifying to the marketing droids and finance people that actually run these companies.
There is nothing stopping any of the console makers from embracing the iPhone, and turning it into an extension of the console experience rather than a competitor to it. (Well, okay, something might stop Microsoft, but Sony and Nintendo have nothing to lose.)
With a single app the iPhone becomes a full color smart controller, with mutli-touch, motion sensing, and a built-in camera.
Allow developers to incorporate that functionality into the iPhone versions of their console games, and you enable a seamless gaming experience from home (where the epic action happens) to the larger world (where you mini-game, grind, or play in smaller-scale settings).
An iPhone at best competes with a DS, and even then, it's a sad comparison. It only really works if you put on your iPose blinders.
It is not the quality of the platform in question but rather the developer mindshare. iPhone is building up greater mindshare so more developers will aim for that platform. It does not matter how good your console is if nobody makes games for it.
It's not about mindshare, it's about return on investment. A competent developer working with a competent artist can produce a successful flash game or an iPhone game in a month or two. Producing a PC or console game takes a few hundred people a year or two. A console game needs a thousand times more income to break even, but only sells for ten times more than an iPhone game so you need to sell a hundred times more of the console game for the same ROI. If you can sell an iPhone game to a tenth of the pe
By taking away market share. It's the same way bicycles compete with cars, not the way BMW competes with Kia.
If you already have a gaming system in your pocket. Games cost $0.99-$10, and they're all 'fun' there will be a certain segment of the population that used to get a 360 that will just stick with the phone. Just as there are certain people who swear by PC gaming as being the 'best' because you can use your 105-key keyboard.
Now extend that a bit further. You now have a TON of developers that know the i
And the alternative here is what? An iPhone (however much one costs) plus what, another $60-80 a _month_ for service? I guess you could say the iPod's as well could count but I just don't see kids wanting an iPod for gaming when there are much better alternatives out there.
You're looking at it backwards, but I respect your opinion none the less.
The iphone and ipod are phones and music players first and foremost. The XBox and PS3 are Gaming systems first and foremost. Their secondary functions are the icing on the cake. So to reitterate, if you want a device to make phone calls, you don't get something else that happens to have phone capability as a secondary function, you get a phone. If you want a music player, you don't get a pedometer that can also play some mp3s, and
We're doomed!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We're doomed!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I only wish my bank account was as doomed as Nintendo's must be right now.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I knew the Wii was only a fad! Just remember, you heard it here first!
[/joke]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends how much time you spend away from home...
I also have a DS, but i usually forget to take it with me, i also have an ipod but again i always forgot to take it... I've had a phone for years, which i always remember to take with me so now when i find myself on or waiting for public transport, waiting for food, waiting for someone etc, i play games or listen to music on my phone. I would have my phone anyway, no point carrying around multiple devices.
Apple recognised that the increasing power of moder
Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machine (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, have any of these people actually played any games on it? They are uniformly quite terrible. The lack of physical buttons is simply too big of an obstacle. Sure you can do some interesting stuff with the accelerometer, but at some point you want to be able to mash some buttons to kill the baddies and the in this regard the iPhone simply sucks ass.
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:5, Funny)
I just hope that console games start becoming ports of mobile phone games. That would be justice for how they've ruined the PC game market.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even now, it's ten times easier for a group to join a random server than it is to join a specific one.
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, have any of these people actually played any games on it? They are uniformly quite terrible. The lack of physical buttons is simply too big of an obstacle. Sure you can do some interesting stuff with the accelerometer, but at some point you want to be able to mash some buttons to kill the baddies and the in this regard the iPhone simply sucks ass.
You're obviously not the target demographic. I'm guessing that, in other discussions, you've said similar things regarding perceived shortcomings with the Wii.
The target demographic that's mainly interested in "mash[ing] some buttons to kill the baddies" is the group that's currently buying XBox 360s and Playstation 3s - and, based on sales, it's pretty obvious it's a significantly smaller group than the group buying the Wii and/or interested in playing short games that you can pick up for a short while and set down afterward. And, in the end, overall sales is really pretty much the only thing any of these companies care about.
I am not meaning (or attempting) to demean your opinion. I'm just pointing out that it's unlikely you're a reflection of the audience Apple is after.
Parent
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, while the Wii has had phenomenal sales, the other two consoles have still gathered an audience - numbers that most markets would BEG to have. The positive thing about the button mashers is that they're growing (gaming is very mainstream, even in the Xbox/PS3 variety) and they don't stop spending money. I mean, if the Xbox 360 and its failure rate (which may or may not be fixed; who knows) can lead the charge through the High-Definition consoles in this economic decline, what will get those gamers to stop spending money?
Parent
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:4, Informative)
Your observations are off. Here's the numbers from vgchartz.com. First column is units of sw worldwide lifetime, second is attach rate.
PS3 153,204,847 6.24
Wii 334,499,258 6.26
360 254,496,331 7.93
So Wii's attach rate is basically tied with PS3.
Parent
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:4, Insightful)
They make little to no money (and even lose money often) on the hardware itself. They make money because each title sold pays a license fee. It also indicates how well the owners like their gaming experience over all.
The wii was making profit on the hardware from day one, they only just now lowered the retail price three years after it's initial release.. they have been making lots off hardware alone
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, open sourced games. Both of those were commercial at first and only opened later, those games have paid professionals working on their creation. Most unpaid open source games are horribly derivative and usually ugly and unintuitive.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find a lot of commercial games have extremely buggy network play these days... I never got to finish a multiplayer game of rise of nations over the internet, because one player would always drop out for some reason and bring the whole game to an end.
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I find that the mashing buttons to kill the baddies falls squarely on the Wii, while beer drinking FPS tournaments are 360's big thing, and heavily priced bizarre gameplay falls in the ps3 arena.
Regardless, the biggest issue seems to me to be basic economics. What is the cost of your entertainment. I've been interested in picking up a next gen console since the wii came out. I've played all three extensively, and at the moment, their price point is nearly identical. But for me to get one game out of a system, I need to drop about $300 for the base system WITHOUT any games, and $50 for a relatively old game (Mario Galaxy is still $50, 3 years in). With high quality games like Braid coming out on steam for $5-$20 the comparable initial drop of $20 to start playing and $350 to start playing is an obvious choice. Needless to say, despite the fact I've typically enjoyed console gaming for years, the higher price point for individual games combined with the cost of the systems (which haven't dropped to levels that I feel the purchase is justified), makes people who share this opinion swing away from them.
I still haven't swung toward cellphone games, because generally, across the board, I haven't found many of them that are on par with games from the super nintendo. Tetris maybe, but I haven't found a good solid push for thought provoking games for a cell. The biggest challenge for me is that the cost of old classics is finally pushing up into the current 'new game' price point that I have no interest in.
I'm mostly hoping this commentary will shed some light on the mindset of a, possibly atypical, non-hard-core gamer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want a great multiplayer strategy game with complex rules and takes a lot of time to learn, I'll play that on my PC or Mac, if I want to blow a couple of hours in a racecar or fragging aliens in an FPS, then my console is pretty good at that. If I am on the bus and have 30 minutes, I might play Assasins Creed or bejewled on the iPhone. (or listen to a podcast, or watch a TV episode, or listen to music etc)
Sometimes I even play board games with my kids and soccer outside. All sorts of games have their place and I hope none of them goes away.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I tried playing soccer inside a few times. It's just not a good idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who has been a gamer for a few decades now, as well as a happy iPhone owner, I can attest to the fact that the iPhone does indeed do video games well. That said, it obviously can't handle the same sorts of gameplay that consoles can handle, and, conversely, it can handle some gameplay that consoles are poorly-built to handle.
Consider Zen Bound [zenbound.com]. It's certainly a casual game, but the premise (using your fingers to rotate a 3D block of wood or metal in order to wrap a rope around as much of the shape as possible...just look at the video at the link) simply doesn't work well on any of the consoles at the moment. I was skeptical at first, but once I saw a few gameplay videos and then got my hands on it, I was sold; the game demonstrates a new form of play and is remarkably entertaining for such a simple concept
Or consider a game like Eliss [toucheliss.com]. Again, remarkably entertaining and yet incredibly simple in concept and execution. Both of these rely heavily on a multitouch interface (Eliss in particular) that none of the other consoles or handheld game devices could possibly hope to match (neither of these have a chance of working on the DS or Wii). When iPhone developers play to the iPhone's strengths, it really shines. When they try to shoehorn gameplay that was made for an entirely different medium, such as a console, into the device, it shows (and it usually sucks).
Really, it all comes back to what it has always been about: making games fun. Quite a few of the developers and console makers have gotten caught up in the shinier graphics, yearly releases on spent franchises, and other such nonsense that they've forgotten what real gamers (read: not "frat bros") want, which is to have a fun time. 8-bit games weren't fun in spite of the graphics. Rather, the only thing that the developers could feasibly work on to differentiate themselves was the gameplay of their product, so they were forced to innovate if they wanted to produce sales, and we saw quite a few brilliant and entertaining examples of new gameplay from that generation. The introduction of 3D with the 64-bit era really changed the game as well, since it allowed for new forms of gameplay, but since then, the industry has stagnated and very little has really changed in terms of the types of gameplay that we can expect.
The iPhone, for all of its foibles and drawbacks, is offering developers a chance to get in on the ground floor with something that's fresh, different, and entirely game-changing. And I'm not talking about the iPhone itself, but rather about multitouch. I honestly believe that multitouch has the potential to provide a more entertaining interface than that of any current console, so while the iPhone may be relegated to "casual" games for now (and it is), it certainly has the potential to explode in the "hardcore" market if a few hardcore titles showcasing multitouch come out. What those titles would be, I have no idea, otherwise I'd be building it now to make my millions.
Parent
Re:Except that the iPhone is a TERRIBLE game machi (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sony hasn't missed the point, because that's how the PSN store works. Haven't you used it?
Don't think so... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I'm more of a casual gamer. Frankly, the $60 titles generally don't hold my attention anymore and I've found the Arcade (xbox 360) titles to be much more fun. I think I've kind of gotten sick of the "wow look at the graphics!" "genre".
That being said, when I do want to sit and waste an hour or two playing games, I want to do so in the comfort of my living room with a nice 46" screen. Not a 3 inch screen. I want to play with a controller built at least somewhat ergonomically, not one that feels like my thumbs are going to snap.
I will concede that _any_ new game "system" will pull customers away from some other company to at least some degree, but I seriously doubt the top players need to worry about the iWhatever taking over their industry.
Although, diversifying in your target market(s) isn't a bad idea.
Also (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the iPhone have many (any?) games that aren't of the simple silly cellphone variety? While there's a market for games like that, no doubt, there is also very clearly a market for games with more depth to them. Some of the top selling games are ones that have a good deal of complexity to them (the Sims being a great example), not the sort of thing that competes with a cellphone game.
Also, as you noted, the iPhone really isn't a competitor for a console just based off of the fact that it is a handheld. S
Re:Also (Score:4, Insightful)
Myst for the iPhone [cyanworlds.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then I realized I could get a DS + GAMES GAMES GAMES for much less than the PS3 + No Games. I've not regretted it.
But then, I'm also happy with the Wii I bought myself for Christmas last year, and RockBand2 I purchased last week (it's way cheap cause they're making room for RB: Beatles). I've not missed having any of the NextGen Consoles, even those they look simply fabulous.
I think
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the iPhone have many (any?) games that aren't of the simple silly cellphone variety? While there's a market for games like that, no doubt, there is also very clearly a market for games with more depth to them. Some of the top selling games are ones that have a good deal of complexity to them (the Sims being a great example), not the sort of thing that competes with a cellphone game.
Simple answer, yes, big games companies are developing big games for it. When you put a machine more powerful than a wii
Whew. (Score:2)
And here I was worried that I could play games without an annual contract to pay a telco every month. I mean, yeah, I could get an ipod touch, but wouldn't that be just like getting a DSi? Who would I pay every month? Gosh!
Everyone agrees that flatulence apps are not only worth paying for, they make having the AT&T contract worthwhile. Look how many people play WoW, clearly games are only fun if you're paying month to month, right?
I agree ! (Score:3, Funny)
It will eat the portable market, maybe (Score:2)
Iphone and the Ipod touch at best can compete with the portable market (unless apple figures out how to make the devices plug into a 1080p HDTV)
I don't think the I-game is eating away market share because it's Apple, I think it's the entire package tied in with it. It's a gaming device, and it works with Itunes.
All Sony/Nintendo has to do to compete with this is write a DS/PSP Itunes sync program, and the problem's solved. Change the image of the DS/PSP from being mostly gaming devices, to a multifunction
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or more to the point and a little better comparison.
When your kid wants to play games and say they have both an iWhatever and a Nintendo DS for example, which do you think they will pick up to play?
Having a game to play on your phone is great when you're at the doctors office waiting, but when it comes down to it, there are much better, dedicated systems, for playing mobile games. Just the control system on the iWhatever sucks for long term gaming and then you take into account the fact that game developer
This is news to them? (Score:2)
"consumers will be satisfied playing games on devices that aren't necessarily focused on gaming."
So you mean like a PC? Back when the home computer market was growing and the Atari was collapsing I'm sure the console industry was wondering the same thing. Once they took back the market in the late 80s (thanks Nintendo) it seemed that as more people got multiple PCs in the home that a shift back to using devices that aren't consoles as our primary gaming systems seems inevitable.
iPhone/Touch app's store is l
Price (Score:4, Interesting)
I think what apple is targeting is the cash strapped parent who kids want multiple mobile devices. Though $200 for an iphone or iPod touch might seem out of line for a kids first device, if it can serve as the personal computer for browsing, email, and reading, can text, take pictures and movies, and play some games, it might seem a good alternative to phone plus a psp plus a music player, etc.
Like the mac,which made graphic processing affordable, the advantage is likely to be short lived. It should be simple to get something like a PSP and add a phone and some other trinkets. If that can happen,then people will likely migrate to it. One thing that I am surprised to see is that MS is not integrating the Windows Mobile, xbox, and zune technology into single product. The fact that we are talking about MS Windows 7 and a new Zune to me is incompressible. A Zune that has and HDMI port, but cannot play games, is simply silly.
Umm, the input sucks on cellphones (Score:2)
The iPhone's touchscreen is nice for some applications. But for general purpose gaming, you can't beat a regular controller. DS-style controls are unlikely to make an appearance on standard cellphones and this will keep gaming on cellphones to a minimum.
They'd better not (Score:3, Insightful)
including an emphasis on software rather than hardware
They'd better not, because that's where their competitive advantage is. The only reason anyone would play on a console instead of on their phone is because of the hardware (including bigger screen, the controllers, etc). If they focus only on software, then eventually any type of software that can be made for a console can be made for a phone.
Through the looking glass. (Score:5, Funny)
Anybody else here grow up during the 70s? 80s? 90s? Anybody else find the idea of Apple being any kind of force in gaming utterly bizarre?
Not saying it won't happen, or that Apple can't be a force in whatever field... but this is like "Ferrari, Lamborghini Worry Over Growing Competition From Oldsmobile" or something.
Bathroom market (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to put this in perspective (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Just to put this in perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on every other product Apple has ever produced, a game console from them would be sleek, stylish, cost in excess of $900.00 (us), have only 3 titles available(each of which would require you to repurchase the title when a patch came out), and a controller with only button. Of course it would have an alternate means to use the button, but it would require you to press the option button on the console itself while trying to press the controller button.
That is the iPhone.
Parent
The major worry? Pricing. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Nintendo DS version of Civilization Revolution was $30 at release. The Xbox 360 version was similarly priced.
The iPhone version is currently $5. It's essentially the same game. The controls aren't as good - and no one is saying that the other two don't have their place, because you don't always want to stare at a tiny screen. Developers have tried to put games for $10 on the App Store. While there's the occasional success, most of the time the reviews are filled with 1-star "$10 for a phone game?" reviews, and the game quickly shoots down the charts and out of the rankings and "Featured" lists.
Peggle for PC is still available for $10. It's the same price on the Xbox 360 (Live Arcade).
The iPhone version is $5.
The iPhone is causing people to shift their view as to an appropriate price point at the same time that many companies are trying to rip out a third of an otherwise complete Xbox or PS3 game so they can sell the rest as "Downloadable content" to squeeze that extra $5-10 out of each buyer. That, I believe, is terrifying to the marketing droids and finance people that actually run these companies.
Embrace and extend (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing stopping any of the console makers from embracing the iPhone, and turning it into an extension of the console experience rather than a competitor to it. (Well, okay, something might stop Microsoft, but Sony and Nintendo have nothing to lose.)
With a single app the iPhone becomes a full color smart controller, with mutli-touch, motion sensing, and a built-in camera.
Allow developers to incorporate that functionality into the iPhone versions of their console games, and you enable a seamless gaming experience from home (where the epic action happens) to the larger world (where you mini-game, grind, or play in smaller-scale settings).
Re: (Score:2)
From the iPhone. Did you even look at the summary?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does an iPhone compete with an XBox 360 or a PS 3 as the summary implies? It doesn't.
An iPhone at best competes with a DS, and even then, it's a sad comparison. It only really works if you put on your iPose blinders.
You don't even need to read the summary to see that this article is totally retarded.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not the quality of the platform in question but rather the developer mindshare. iPhone is building up greater mindshare so more developers will aim for that platform. It does not matter how good your console is if nobody makes games for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about mindshare, it's about return on investment. A competent developer working with a competent artist can produce a successful flash game or an iPhone game in a month or two. Producing a PC or console game takes a few hundred people a year or two. A console game needs a thousand times more income to break even, but only sells for ten times more than an iPhone game so you need to sell a hundred times more of the console game for the same ROI. If you can sell an iPhone game to a tenth of the pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By taking away market share. It's the same way bicycles compete with cars, not the way BMW competes with Kia.
If you already have a gaming system in your pocket. Games cost $0.99-$10, and they're all 'fun' there will be a certain segment of the population that used to get a 360 that will just stick with the phone. Just as there are certain people who swear by PC gaming as being the 'best' because you can use your 105-key keyboard.
Now extend that a bit further. You now have a TON of developers that know the i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at it backwards, but I respect your opinion none the less.
The iphone and ipod are phones and music players first and foremost. The XBox and PS3 are Gaming systems first and foremost. Their secondary functions are the icing on the cake. So to reitterate, if you want a device to make phone calls, you don't get something else that happens to have phone capability as a secondary function, you get a phone. If you want a music player, you don't get a pedometer that can also play some mp3s, and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
iPhone 3GS bestselling phone in Japan [electronista.com]: I'd say that the iPhone is gaining popularity in Japan.