-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Not only are handhelds done for, CNET writer doesn't think Vita will come out in NA
- Thread starter Takao
- Start date
kobashi100
Banned
Not sure why some people think COD on Vita would be some huge game changer.
Even if handheld sales drop because of the increasing success of gaming on a phone, it doesnt mean it's dead, this is what I think most people are "missing". Will Nintendo be pissed? Sure, but they do so astronomically well that even with smaller sales and market share, they can live very comfortabily. Healthy 3ds sales also show the market is alive and well. Sony? Well, they'll probably converge their phone and gaming departments some more.
charlequin
Banned
Because Apple already makes a shitload of money off of gaming the way they do things now, without having to spend almost any time, money, or effort to do so.
I honestly don't think Apple was able to foresee the impact they made on the gaming market. If they did they would have spent more time trying to foster its development and ensure the developers can make the best games they can. Only now it seems like gaming is an afterthought. I don't see how anyone who respects the medium can respect that.
charlequin
Banned
Why on Earth would they do that? There's no return on it. And I don't just meant there's no monetary return on it (although there isn't); there's no real customer satisfaction return either, because their customers are broadly satisfied with the gaming library that exists on iOS.
They can increase their market penetration? Entice "core" game players like myself, build relationships with content publishers and developers, and make more money than what they're already making. As new as this iOS gaming market is, at some point it's going to plateau and cease garnering the revenue it used to make. Publishers and content owners are going to want more return. If apple is looking out for their best interests, they would ensure that there is room for them to grow and expand.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
The same way they respect Microsoft for knowingly shipping Xbox 360s out the door with high failure rate chips and shitty cooling just to get a jump on Sony.
The same way they respect Sony despite the shitty PSN debacle.
The same way they respect Nintendo, despite the way they threatened third parties to keep them from releasing games on Sega's Master System.
Unlike Apple, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo ALL rely on third party software developers to ensure they can make the most money (and vice versa). All of those examples (sans Nintendo) are unforeseen circumstances that happen to any business. What about the stories of either 3 covering the marketing and/or publishing budget of a particular title. Or ensure developers have proper dev kits when a new console is about to launch, or getting feedback from developers about said new console. There is money to be made on both ends.
Generations by definition are determined by time and predecessor. Wii U is the successor to Wii, a current-gen system. Therefore, it's next-gen. If Wii U didn't have a predecessor, its generation would be determined by which generation it launches closest to. Making up other definitions just kills the point, especially since in some cases those definitions are influenced by personal bias.
there is return in it from consumers that feel confident they can buy high production value games like infinity blade without it crashing all the time or not even launching. They get a return from developers more willing to invest in games because the platform is more tuned for games, rather than treating games the same as a twitter or fart app. Games are probably the most demanding feature on a platform - Apple are spending money on high performance GPUs in iPad 2 for instance - what is that needed for if not for games? The relative amount of effort/money they'd need to spend on tools/tuning the OS better for game devs is nothing compared to how much they are spending on hardware. In fact it may save them money if they can get more efficiency out of what they already have (although they're ahead of android there at least)
not true
Platform is sound developers have yet to master marrying touch based interfaces and console type games
also have you seen the Texas hold em page? Apple listed the gameplay mechanics of the game, who states GAMEPLAY MECHANICS when describing a game they usually talk more features instead of industry terms
also referred phone games as a sub genre or section of casual gaming
which is spot on
The interface of a hardware platform shouldn't dictate what developers can and cannot do. Like nintendo said, the games should dictate what types of controls are needed. Developers shouldn't have to master what types of game work with touch based interfaces.
That's why I commend Sony and Nintendo on their approach to the Vita and 3DS.
Nintendo didn't really HAVE to include a 3D, an analog nub, or even cameras, but they felt it would allow for more immersion.
With Sony they REALLY didn't have to add a second analog stick or back touch, cameras, or gyro either.
Father_Brain
Banned
Short answer: Wishful thinking.
Longer, less pithy answer: The audience craving dudebro games on a dedicated handheld is overrepresented here, and since the Vita hardware is the best-suited to those games, said audience wants to believe that it can succeed on the back of such software in order to ensure a steady flow of it over its lifespan.
Honestly I don't care. I dealt with it with the Super Game Boy and the Game Boy Player. I'll deal with it here.
Playing a handheld game in your own house though really isn't very different from reading a book in your own house unless you have a similar console game. It's really all about - as Nintendo said, making good games that don't really work without a D pad and buttons. I don't think Super Mario 3D Land would be as good anywhere but the 3DS. I would've said the same for Metal Gear Solid Peace Walker before the HD version came out.
I'll admit that there are a lot of DS and PSP games that I would totally prefer to play on my iPhone, but there are a few games that I wouldn't want to play anywhere but a dedicated handheld, and even a few iPhone games that I would prefer to play on a dedicated handheld.
dorkimoe
Gold Member
Neither was the wii
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
It's a cliche at this point, but as long as there's Pokemon, there will be Nintendo hand helds that focus on being gaming devices first.
Sony, I think will indeed go the convergence phone device route, and Vita is pretty much halfway there already. I'm almost surprised it DOESN'T have a version that's also a phone.
It'll basically just be Nintendo again, left in the pure gaming business, but then, as has always been the case, Nintendo is a pure game company. Keeping games alive and relevant is the only way they have to stay alive. Crisis Nintendo is best Nintendo, etc etc.
I also don't believe the jazz about human psychology itself having been forever changed by iOS, etc; that's hyperbole. It's more that in most (not all, but most) cases people who didn't have the attention span or interest for games are now playing them because their shiny new phone just happens to support apps as well. Everyone goes on about how smartphones "consumed" portable gaming, but if smartphones had never existed, most of the customers buying iOS games wouldn't have suddenly woken up one morning and said "I want to get into video games!" and went out to buy a PSP.
If anything, convergence of game genres in the west is getting more people IN to bigger games. You can't say people now just want short games that are over quickly when investment gaming that keeps people playing basically forever is only on the rise.
But at any rate, everything is in a state of flux obviously and is nowhere near settled. But the 3DS picking up just proves, again, that there's a market there and one that money can be made off of.
In a sense, these debates remind me of the business talk going around recently about how the entire model of companies existing only to make shareholders happy, done usually by trying to gain the most market share, is actually broken, and divorced from "real" business. The story with Nintendo's shareholders harping on them to make mobile phone games is a perfect example; with the religion of the expectations market firmly entrenched, many will look at this as "Nintendo is doomed if they don't capture the most market share possible to make shareholders happy".
But, Nintendo's business is pretty clear; they make games, that have a certain kind of value, and provide that value to a reliable customer. Fads can come and go, speculation markets and bubbles can expand and shrink, but Nintendo has always been very canny about their real business. It's why they take care of Pokemon and such with great precision.
I think Nintendo getting in to the handheld market in the first place wasn't an arbitrary way to devise a new product to sell that maybe somebody might want. It was more that they realized the handheld, focused game device was the ultimate way to create a very personal relationship between customers and your content. It obviously struck a chord, the response was huge. Nintendo's REAL business isn't in making specific game consoles or devices... it's in making their content supremely valuable to individuals. They do that in part by making the hardware the content is presented on; the old "Nintendo should go 3rd party" line just doesn't comprehend this distinction.
To draw a comparison, it would be like a bunch of people always chanting Apple should go "third party", get out of hardware, and port Apple OS to PC hardware since that has the most market share. Aside from the fact that Apple makes money off hardware, there's another reason they would never do that. They may only have a small percentage of the desktop market, but the percentage they do have is what could be considered an important demographic.
Likewise, Nintendo struggles to maintain a connection with an important demographic; people who respond to robust games that are games first and foremost, products built on the original foundations of video games. Instead of distractions, interactive movies, or whatever other trends sweep the computer game industry to and fro. Hell, there's a reason why the dirt secret of the rest of the game industry is that people who want to make better games crib from Nintendo. But, I think that's a big reason, or the primary reason even, Nintendo will do everything in its power to remain in hardware. Its strategy for optimizing its software involves controlling the hardware. Same as Apple controls the hardware its OS and applications are designed around.
charlequin
Banned
Market penetration is meaningless. Apple's return on investment for each dollar spent on gaming is literally hundreds of times higher than any of the companies in the dedicated gaming industry.
But neither of these is even a slight, minor problem right now. Apple's general-purpose quality control deals with the first one, and even with the numerous ways that Apple mistreat their developers, people are still lining up to throw apps at their platform.
As long as Apple have a wildly popular platform whose users spend a ton of money on third-party apps, there's really no reason for them to invest more in wooing developers or moving further into the competitive and unprofitable core-gaming market -- anything they could spend on that would be better spent just ensuring that their overall platform continues to enjoy that wild popularity.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
What do you mean "didn't have to include an analog nub"?
No one has to do anything. This is business, not charity. Nintendo and Sony do what they do to (hopefully) attract customers that value things like 3D screens and analog nubs.
Apple doesn't need to support gaming on its platform. People who own iOS devices want games; people who develop for iOS devices want to make games. Apple, the developers and the players end up satisfied: Apple gets revenue, developers get revenue, players get games. It's just economics.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
I hope Apple never decides to try and make the iPhone more of a game system. Adding anything to it that destroys it's functionality and sleekness as a phone will destroy it's appeal to me.
Any kind of non touch control scheme, no es bueno.
Any kind of non touch control scheme, no es bueno.
Zoramon089
Banned
Does Apple actually support games? Or do they just have a platform for supporting apps, which games happen to fall under?
wait so whats the solution again? basically just mimic what they do on game consoles? this is the vita is doing bad thread right? a game console thats, doing what game consoles are currently doing lol
I believe that one is called "The Dictionary".
I would personally prefer a slide-out attachment that has d-pad, face buttons and analog nubs) though that would never happen. All iOS games from now until eternity will only be subject to touch only controls.
I've always stood by the notion that if Apple were to release device that had the whole package, I think they could give nintendo a run for their money. Their brand has enough clout that I would buy such a device on sheer potential.
dream
Member
Well, they added matchmaking, achievements, and async multiplayer to iOS, so I'm going to say it's the former.
ukresistance
Banned
The PSVita will be released in the US and Europe!
The question. Will any of us really notice?
The question. Will any of us really notice?
test_account
XP-39C²
Yes, there will be ads.
Lufiaddict
Member
n/m
crisdecuba
Member
Ugh...
While I normally enjoy Buzz Out Loud (though I prefer the 404) on CNET, this part of the prediction show was cringe-worthy.
These are likely wasted words, but here's why this was such BS and so ARGH-inducing:
* Brian Tong (the guy with the prediction) said he was the prime target for a handheld gaming device and since he's not interested, then it's surely on its way out. No way. I'd say the target market is still kids and gamers wanting a significant gaming experience on the go. As long as Nintendo continues to keep their IPs exclusive to their own hardware and continue to make good games, there will be a significant market for their handheld devices. (See the recent sales for Mario Kart 7 and SM3DL as a reference.)
* The offhand, casual, and completely uninformed and ignorant way in which Molly says, "Yeah, they probably won't even release it in the US." Why even say anything when it's clear you don't know anything about the subject? Blargh...
* There's no counterpoint to Brian Tong's Apple-centric understanding of the universe... in which of course there isn't a handheld-specific market because there aren't any dedicated Apple devices in that space...
While I normally enjoy Buzz Out Loud (though I prefer the 404) on CNET, this part of the prediction show was cringe-worthy.
These are likely wasted words, but here's why this was such BS and so ARGH-inducing:
* Brian Tong (the guy with the prediction) said he was the prime target for a handheld gaming device and since he's not interested, then it's surely on its way out. No way. I'd say the target market is still kids and gamers wanting a significant gaming experience on the go. As long as Nintendo continues to keep their IPs exclusive to their own hardware and continue to make good games, there will be a significant market for their handheld devices. (See the recent sales for Mario Kart 7 and SM3DL as a reference.)
* The offhand, casual, and completely uninformed and ignorant way in which Molly says, "Yeah, they probably won't even release it in the US." Why even say anything when it's clear you don't know anything about the subject? Blargh...
* There's no counterpoint to Brian Tong's Apple-centric understanding of the universe... in which of course there isn't a handheld-specific market because there aren't any dedicated Apple devices in that space...
Dark Octave
Banned
LOL At the rest of what he said, but Wii-U will have current gen guts, therefore it is a current gen console that will come out next gen, same as the Wii.
I don't care.
I don't care.
... Except that it won't have "current-gen guts," and the "guts" don't determine the generation anyway.
No it won't.
Hazelhurst
Member
It will have next-gen graphics. However, the 720 and PS4 will probably be slightly more powerful due to coming out later.
What about an official add-on for games that go beyond cutting ropes? Something you slide your iphone in, that has buttons and analogue sticks.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
I agree 100%, and frankly I'm kind of surprised that anyone would attempt to argue otherwise.
Completely unnecessary. They'll never do it, nor do they need to. Games on iOS are far beyond cutting ropes as is.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
The Wii U is more powerful than the PS3 and the 360.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
This is Nintendo we're talking about. I'm expecting something slightly more powerful than what we have now, and it getting trounced by PS4 and the next Xbox graphically.
Can't wait until we see some real U games in action though. I hope they blow my expectations away.
Sure is. Just like the Wii is more powerful than the Gamecube.
Just compare this Gamecube game
to this Wii game
Oh wait...
It's all going to depend upon the effort devs put into it.
If the Wii U is like the Wii, I have little confidence in the actual graphical output when compared to what it's capable of.
bgassassin
Member
That's the one thing about this gen I haven't understood. Nintendo goes underpowered and all of a sudden that's what they are known for. Sony finally makes the "most" powerful console one time and that's what they are all of a sudden known for.
But trounced is pretty much guaranteed not to happen since I don't expect MS or Sony waiting till 2014.
It's always a case of what have you done lately. There were plenty of people who thought Vita was going to launch at a price tag of at least $400 because the PS3 was $500 and $600 at launch. The PS3 being $500/$600 somehow eroded the fact that the PSP launched at $249, the PS2 at $299, and the PS1 at $299.
Was the N64 a generation above the PS1 then? Is it color depth, in which case we're still in the same generation as the PS2? It doesn't work like that at all.
Or the PS3 lost Sony a shitton of money, at a time of massive transition for the organization as a whole, to the point where it's undeniably behind in the boom markets of personal electronics and deeply invested in a television business that's suffering due to the glut of affordable alternatives.
Why would Apple be interested in facilitating the status quo, when they can disrupt price structures and significantly lower the barrier to entry for consumers in regards to accessibility, purchasing, discovery, et al through a unified App Store library?
Nintendo talked about a blue ocean strategy with the Wii. Apple took it five steps further by lowering the barrier to entry and let the market take its course. I don't know if Swords & Sorcery would be able to cast such a wide net on any other platform. Sure, we have successes like Cave Story on the PC, but the best thing Apple did for small developers is by unifying the consumption experience through the app store - it gives peace of mind to the end user.
As a consumer, the step that Apple took is better for me. Why? If Apple built the app store around content publishers, we'd be stuck with $15 Scrabble across two versions.
The way it is currently, smaller developers priced their products to sell and drove prices down, while providing a vast variety of experiences.
There's shitty stuff. There's good stuff. But, most importantly, there's creativity.
People seem to have a VERY selective memory when it comes to Nintendo.
Hence, the "LOL Wii!" justification for thinking Nintendo only makes weak systems.
bgassassin
Member
That's pretty much it, though I'd side more on the "what have you done lately" since it's inclusive of all things instead of just focusing on Nintendo. MS is the only one that has shown a consistent trend in their hardware choices.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Just look at all the idiots who insist the Dreamcast was part of the 32 bit (PS, Saturn) gen.