Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

Disliking a business model that affects the way games are designed is totally understandable though, right? To say that "monetization" is a categorically bad thing and bad influence when it drives the way the game is designed. Monetization is not a bad thing in and of itself, if you're giving the player good value. It's predatory practices that hunt for whales that causes the game to be either a glorified gambling machine or a pay to win loop that is a problem.

The analogy to 80's rock and pearl jam doesn't really fit because both are still music. They are still bands that sold complete albums and performed on tour and sold merchandise. The business model didn't shift. The songs didn't become 20 seconds long. There weren't ads put into the album, etc.

Both styles of music are still music -- and both styles of games are still games. "No, my case is different," you might think; that is precisely what my friend thinks, too.

I think the games you like are pretty predatory as well, from my perspective. 60 dollars up front, DLC and horse armor and season passes and so forth; the biggest difference is that you happen to actually like those sorts of games.

This is really my point. The bad things about mobile monetization strike you as sinister, cynical, predatory; the bad things about console/traditional monetization you either consider okay because you love the games so much or consider them an "infection" from mobile gaming (which is entirely incorrect).

 

[axisofweevils]

I think the OP has a point. I do think some gamers react badly at any attempt to make the hobby appeal to a wider audience.

You see it with Gamergate - people actually reacting badly to the idea that future games may take into consideration the opinions of women.

You saw it with the Wii - and the mocking of the casual waggle.

And you're seeing it now with mobile...

 

[Zambayoshi]

Mobile gaming is gradually getting better, and closer to traditional gaming. There is also a lot of money to be made in mobile gaming, partly from the volume of games that can be sold (virtually everyone has at least one smartphone) and partly from many mobile games using mechanics from gambling to motivate in-app purchases.

There are quite a few developers and now even a publisher (Konami) who have explicitly moved away from making or publishing traditional games in favour of mobile games.

People are worried that the rise and rise of mobile gaming will lead to the death of traditional gaming.

My feeling is that the rise of mobile gaming is like the rise of the mass-produced automobile. Most people who have a car only use it to get from A to B, but some love tinkering or tuning a car, buying accessories, attending track days or events, buying imported or rare cares. The fact that most people are now only using cars for mundane and unexciting purposes hasn't really affected the world of the car enthusiast. If anything, it makes it easier and more acceptable for a car 'consumer' to turn into a car 'enthusiast'.

Anyway, I think that there will always be a market for makers of traditional games, but we as people who appreciate traditional games might need to be prepared to pay more for them. We are already doing so by buying collector's or special editions, buying accessories such as figurines (including amiibo), books and the like, and buying DLC for games.

I'd rather games publishers do this kind of thing rather than use mechanisms like in-app purchases in traditional games. We've seen some publishers flirt with the idea like Warner Bros in Mortal Combat X ('buying' fatalities) or Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed Unity. Perhaps for me the worst offender was EA with the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. Buying the multiplayer packs containing random weapons etc was a clear example of mobile game mechanisms being used. Choosing not to buy the packs would mean that a player needed to grind (a bit) instead if he or she wanted a pack.

I've gotten a bit off-topic here, but my point is that I think there is room for both kinds of games, but I can see why traditional gamers are concerned by the ubiquity of mobile games.

 

[SeanTSC]

I think the games you like are pretty predatory as well, from my perspective. 60 dollars up front, DLC and horse armor and season passes and so forth; the biggest difference is that you happen to actually like those sorts of games.

This is really my point. The bad things about mobile monetization strike you as sinister, cynical, predatory; the bad things about console/traditional monetization you either consider okay because you love the games so much or consider them an "infection" from mobile gaming (which is entirely incorrect).

This is some shit that is nonsense. I buy more games than most people here, by far. I listed out 91 PS4 games that I owned a while back (it's more now) in a thread and what had DLC and what kind of DLC it had.

Less than one third (30) had any DLC at all. Only a couple had "microtransactions", only a couple had Season Passes, only a few had cosmetic stuff, and most of the games that did have DLC had fairly substantial, non-scummy content DLC.

None of those games are even remotely comparable to the Skinner Boxes that make up an absurd amount of Mobile gaming. And still bringing up Horse Armor? Come on. That's basically Godwin's Law'ing yourself.

Post listing all that out: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161012449&postcount=124

 

[More_Badass]

It is NOT the same at all. The signal to noise ratio of Quality Vs. Crap in Mobile Gaming Vs. Every Other Form of Media Ever Made in the History of Mankind is completely incomparable. That's not a hyperbolic statement. That's just how absurd the number of shit being thrown at the App Stores every single month is.

Mobile and PC are more alike than some would like to admit. More free games came out on PC in 2014 alone than the entire Steam library since 2005 and the entire GOG library combined. The ratio of quality to crap on PC is pretty much the same as on mobile, difference being that PC has very visible, curated storefronts that allows one to ignore the hundreds and thousands of free games and flash games that release every month, every year

 

[Opiate]

This is some shit that is nonsense. I buy more games than most people here, by far. I listed out 91 PS4 games that I owned a while back (it's more now) in a thread and what had DLC and what kind of DLC it had.

Less than one third (30) had any DLC at all. Only a couple had "microtransactions", only a couple had Season Passes, only a few had cosmetic stuff, and most of the games that did have DLC had fairly substantial, non-scummy content DLC.

None of those games are even remotely comparable to the Skinner Boxes that make up an absurd amount of Mobile gaming. And still bringing up Horse Armor? Come on. That's basically Godwin's Law'ing yourself.

Post listing all that out: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161012449&postcount=124

Yes, this sounds like a hugely biased opinion.

First, there is selection bias here: presumably you happen to buy more games that suit your preferences/preferred business model. Similarly, a gamer on mobile could buy mostly good games, and point out that of the games he buys, only 40% have microtransactions. This is, again, selection bias. Even still: only one third of games strikes me as very high.

It also assumes, of course, that DLC is inherently objectionable (and that microtransactions are). I don't personally like either, but then, that's really my point here.

 

[breadtruck]

I like mobile games as long as they dont: bombard me with ads, make me wait to play (or "buy my way" back in,) clearly put me at a disadvantage for playing as free, or be the same repetitive drivel.

I play mobile games here and there, but honestly they are more annoying than anything to me. I dont find them fun. I dont think they are worth paying for. They are barely passable as "time wasters."

That said my wife plays some mobile game shes addicted to every chance she gets. Whatever.

 

[More_Badass]

I like mobile games as long as they dont: bombard me with ads, make me wait to play (or "buy my way" back in,) clearly put me at a disadvantage for playing as free, or be the same repetitive drivel.

I play mobile games here and there, but honestly they are more annoying than anything to me. I dont find them fun. I dont think they are worth paying for. They are barely passable as "time wasters."

Given that you wouldn't pay for them, I'm assuming you haven't checked out stuff like Device 6, Sorcery, Year Walk, and The Room?

 

[7DollarHagane]

Both styles of music are still music -- and both styles of games are still games. "No, my case is different," you might think; that is precisely what my friend thinks, too.

I think the games you like are pretty predatory as well, from my perspective. 60 dollars up front, DLC and horse armor and season passes and so forth; the biggest difference is that you happen to actually like those sorts of games.

This is really my point. The bad things about mobile monetization strike you as sinister, cynical, predatory; the bad things about console/traditional monetization you either consider okay because you love the games so much or consider them an "infection" from mobile gaming (which is entirely incorrect).

It's not as simple as a split of platforms or "AAA" gaming.

You have to take it on a case by case basis.

I think that Final Fantasy Record Keeper, Splatoon, Counter Strike:GO and the Witcher 3 are all examples of "good" monetization and business practices.

I think that Game of War, Evolve, and most pre-order exclusive content to be "bad" monetization and business practices.

Maybe it would be closer to saying that one band "sold out" vs another even though they have the same style of music.

 

[ArtHands]

I like mobile games as long as they dont: bombard me with ads, make me wait to play (or "buy my way" back in,) clearly put me at a disadvantage for playing as free, or be the same repetitive drivel.

I play mobile games here and there, but honestly they are more annoying than anything to me. I dont find them fun. I dont think they are worth paying for. They are barely passable as "time wasters."

That said my wife plays some mobile game shes addicted to every chance she gets. Whatever.

Most (almost all) of the paid apps doesn't have the things you said.

 

[tiebreaker]

My main gripe is that the companies that used to make traditional console games are moving to mobile. And they don't make traditional games and put it to ios or android, but rather a run down version of it.

If Konami is going full mobile, do you think we will see the same pro evolution soccer or MGS as the one being made right now?

 

[7DollarHagane]

My main gripe is that the companies that used to make traditional console games are moving to mobile. And they don't make traditional games and put it to ios or android, but rather a run down version of it.

If Konami is going full mobile, do you think we will see the same pro evolution soccer or MGS as the one being made right now?

Yeah the problem is balance - I don't want konami to make no mobile games, but I don't want konami to make ALL mobile games either.

It just seems like they could continue with small teams to release downloadable classic titles on steam and consoles or license out the IPs to other teams that have good ideas or talent to make new games. This would be consistent good income and goodwill from fans.

I think it's crazy that you can't buy more classic games on PS4/Steam/XB1. Why can't you buy Symphony of the Night or a collection of the GBA Castlevanias on steam? Why can't capcom sell a decent port of Super SF2 Turbo on Steam? We have KOF98 that came out just a few years ago, after all.

Instead it's just fuck it all burn it to the ground lets hunt whales on mobile 24/7!

 

[Opiate]

My main gripe is that the companies that used to make traditional console games are moving to mobile. And they don't make traditional games and put it to ios or android, but rather a run down version of it.

If Konami is going full mobile, do you think we will see the same pro evolution soccer or MGS as the one being made right now?

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is driven first and foremost by the cost of console development.

If console development was still profitable, then people wouldn't be moving from one platform to the other; they would either develop games for both or stay put. In business, if you already have a good thing going, you tend to not give it up.

The relentlessly increasing costs of development combined with a stagnant user base size are really pinching consoles in terms of software development. As a simple comparison, Harley Davidson does fine with a client base that isn't growing very rapidly (it is growing, but only slightly faster than population growth overall), but this is because motorcycle production costs remain relatively stable and they can push a consistent, reliable profit. Now imagine if the cost of producing a motorcycle doubled every 5-10 years; that would be a problem and would not be sustainable.

That's basically where consoles are -- stagnant consumer base with steadily increasing costs leads to trouble in the long term.

 

[Reebot]

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is driven first and foremost by the cost of console development.

If console development was still profitable, then people wouldn't be moving from one platform to the other; they would either develop games for both or stay put. In business, if you already have a good thing going, you tend to not give it up.

The relentlessly increasing costs of development combined with a stagnant user base size are really pinching consoles in terms of software development. As a simple comparison, Harley Davidoson does fine with a client base that isn't growing very rapidly (it is growing, but only slightly faster than population growth overall), but this is because motorcycle production costs remain relatively stable and they can push a consistent, reliable profit. Now imagine if the cost of producing a motorcycle doubled every 5-10 years; that would be a problem and would not be sustainable.

That's basically where consoles are -- stagnant consumer base with steadily increasing costs leads to trouble in the long term.

Stark, accentuate summary.

Mobile games are the scapegoat here for a negative trend that exists without them, driven by the console market.

 

[PapaEmeritus]

Not for me. Other than monument valley I think the controls suck. Platform games on touch screen are absolute trash, anyone who says otherwise is just forcing themselves to justify it.
I have never played anything that requires precision and been able to master it on a touchscreen

 

[Overside]

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is driven first and foremost by the cost of console development.

If console development was still profitable, then people wouldn't be moving from one platform to the other; they would either develop games for both or stay put. In business, if you already have a good thing going, you tend to not give it up.

The relentlessly increasing costs of development combined with a stagnant user base size are really pinching consoles in terms of software development. As a simple comparison, Harley Davidson does fine with a client base that isn't growing very rapidly (it is growing, but only slightly faster than population growth overall), but this is because motorcycle production costs remain relatively stable and they can push a consistent, reliable profit. Now imagine if the cost of producing a motorcycle doubled every 5-10 years; that would be a problem and would not be sustainable.

That's basically where consoles are -- stagnant consumer base with steadily increasing costs leads to trouble in the long term.

DING DING DING!!!

 

[ChrisD]

I just don't like the control scheme. It really is as simple is that for me. There's some cool stuff on mobile, but I don't care for how you play them.

 

[More_Badass]

Not for me. Other than monument valley I think the controls suck. Platform games on touch screen are absolute trash, anyone who says otherwise is just forcing themselves to justify it.
I have never played anything that requires precision and been able to master it on a touchscreen

Sounds like the issue might be more subjective rather objective. I've found stuff like Limbo, VVVVVV, Leo's Fortune, and Penumbear to control well. I think someone who 1) has grown up with touch controls or 2) plays on regular daily basis would have little to no issue playing compared to someone who grew up with controllers and KB/M and only plays mobile on the rare occassion. Similar to how someone who switches from long time console gaming to PC might find KB/M awkward to use

 

[Game Guru]

I don't necessarily disagree, but this is driven first and foremost by the cost of console development.

If console development was still profitable, then people wouldn't be moving from one platform to the other; they would either develop games for both or stay put. In business, if you already have a good thing going, you tend to not give it up.

The relentlessly increasing costs of development combined with a stagnant user base size are really pinching consoles in terms of software development. As a simple comparison, Harley Davidoson does fine with a client base that isn't growing very rapidly (it is growing, but only slightly faster than population growth overall), but this is because motorcycle production costs remain relatively stable and they can push a consistent, reliable profit. Now imagine if the cost of producing a motorcycle doubled every 5-10 years; that would be a problem and would not be sustainable.

That's basically where consoles are -- stagnant client base with relentlessly increasing costs leads to trouble in the long term.

He's not asking Konami doesn't want to make AAA budget games... He's asking why Konami doesn't port or make paid games on a, I guess, smaller budget, as well as making F2P mobile games. Hell, they could even put them on mobile as well if they wanted. Basically, why do many of these big companies want AAA console and F2P mobile, and nothing else? F2P mobile is just as much an unstable market as AAA console. Seems like a smart video game company would invest in mobile since it is booming, but also try to stabilize their traditional development costs.

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but seeing the success that Mighty No. 9 and Bloodstained appears to be achieving just feels like Capcom and Konami are leaving stable money on the table.

 

[Gbraga]

No, I think people just see a distinction between real games and mobile games because mobile games are generally low budget, have bad writing (if any), have cheap and heavily recycled mechanics and are generally boring as all hell.

Aside from the low budget part, you described the AAA industry, tbh.

Though I'm also no fan of mobile gaming at all, my phone's primary function is to wake me up, after that, receive calls. Youtube every now and then, I guess.

Just not a fan. It could change in the future, who knows, but if even using the internet on my phone is something I'm not fond of, I can't see myself gaming with it.

EDIT: I should also add, I'm not really into the whole "crusade" against mobile gaming thing, if something I dislike becomes the norm in gaming, I'll just stop caring about new games and platforms. If that's the best way for the market, then so be it. It's not like I'm being forced to play them.

 

[Opiate]

He's not asking Konami doesn't want to make AAA budget games... He's asking why Konami doesn't port or make paid games on a, I guess, smaller budget, as well as making F2P mobile games.

Because console games cost an enormous amount to make.

Hell, they could even put them on mobile as well if they wanted. Basically, why do many of these big companies want AAA console and F2P mobile, and nothing else?

There are a few reasons: the first is that it raises the barriers to entry, and makes it hard for new entrants to enter. If it costs tens of millions of dollars just to make a game that even has the possibility of mass sales, then only a few companies will be able to compete at that level -- which is good if you are already one of those few. EA, for example, is more than fine with an ecosystem that is tough on everyone but a few winners, since they are one of those few.

The second reason, however, is consumer demand, at least on consoles. B and C games didn't just magically disappear from these platforms; they disappeared because games which were perceived as substandard in terms of their scope or graphics or production values or the lack of "immersiveness" of their world were punished harshly in the marketplace.

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but seeing the success that Mighty No. 9 and Bloodstained appears to be achieving just feels like Capcom and Konami are leaving stable money on the table.

Generally, kickstarters have not done well for consoles -- virtually all kickstarted projects up until now have been PC and iOS focused. This indicates that very little money is being left on table (although the two you mentioned are exceptions) compared to PC/iOS, where Kickstarter projects have fared much better overall. If more console-centric projects start succeeding, then yes, I'd agree there is money being left on the table.

 

[More_Badass]

He's not asking Konami doesn't want to make AAA budget games... He's asking why Konami doesn't port or make paid games on a, I guess, smaller budget, as well as making F2P mobile games. Hell, they could even put them on mobile as well if they wanted. Basically, why do many of these big companies want AAA console and F2P mobile, and nothing else? F2P mobile is just as much an unstable market as AAA console. Seems like a smart video game company would invest in mobile since it is booming, but also try to stabilize their traditional development costs.

Maybe I'm not seeing it, but seeing the success that Mighty No. 9 and Bloodstained appears to be achieving just feels like Capcom and Konami are leaving stable money on the table.

Ubisoft made Assassins Creed Chronicles, Far Cry Blood Dragon, and several mobile games

Square Enix did Hitman Go, several FF mobile games, a Deus Ex mobile game, while still releasing Human Revolution, Hitman Absolution

Not sure about EA and Activision (although the latter did release CoD Strike Team), but the point is, that other big companies are releasing mobile games and AAA games and relatively smaller games (Chronicles, Blood Dragon)

Konami is the only one going full tilt into mobile

 

[Syder]

It's because the majority of mobile games are not good.

This and gaming on a phone isn't convenient. The battery life on the majority of phones is horrendous especially in contrast to actual handheld gaming devices.

 

[Opiate]

Ubisoft made Assassins Creed Chronicles, Far Cry Blood Dragon, and several mobile games

Square Enix did Hitman Go, several FF mobile games, a Deus Ex mobile game, while still releasing Human Revolution, Hitman Absolution

Not sure about EA and Activision (although the latter did release CoD Strike Team), but the point is, that other big companies are releasing mobile games and AAA games and relatively smaller games (Chronicles, Blood Dragon)

Konami is the only one going full tilt into mobile

A lot of those others have dramatically scaled back their console release schedule, though. EA was releasing more than 70 console games a year as recently as 2009; they release about a dozen now. Virtually every major publisher has been reducing their console release list; Konami may just be the first to shrink the release list all the way to 0.

 

[Yagharek]

There's also a number of differing degrees of opposition to mobile games.

There is the outright hatred "they took our games" type.

There is the "not real games" type.

There is other more reasonable types where the criticism is akin to someone watching or reading a book or film that is supposedly representative of a genre, and not liking it. For example, if I showed my wife star wars ep1 she would reasonably assume the series is dumb. If you need to invest an unreasonable amount of time discovering the good bits then it is reasonable to not bother with it.

There is also the problem of control schemes discussed endlessly here and elsewhere.

The OP is wrong to assume negative opinions of mobile are just due to one or two reasons. People can like or dislike them for any given reason, and in a world where we are swamped for choice in entertainment it isn't worth either trying to convince someone they're irrational nor do people have to give anything a fair go.

Just so long as they are measured in subsequent criticism of said thing. For example, I don't hate mobile games. They just don't interest me. No cool kid syndrome there. Just lack of interest.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

No, we hate shitty mobile games because we remember a time when the biggest and best developers made their money by delivering fully formed, polished, and mechanically satisfying games. These games inspired the imaginations of today's graphic artists, composers, and game masters. Whereas these shitty mobile games are inspiring tomorrow's mindless gamblers.

That's why we hate them.

 

[More_Badass]

No, we hate shitty mobile games because we remember a time when the biggest and best developers made their money by delivering fully formed, polished, and mechanically satisfying games. These games inspired the imaginations of today's graphic artists, composers, and game masters. Whereas these shitty mobile games are inspiring tomorrow's mindless gamblers.

That's why we hate them.

Considering that The Room influenced Brian Fargo's approach to puzzles and environmental interaction in the upcoming Bard Tale IV, Kojima named a mobile game his GOTY, and the platform practically revitalized interactive fiction with inkle's Sorcery, Simogo's Device 6, and others, perhaps you're underestimating the impact mobile gaming might have? I hate the shitty F2P bullshit as much as anyone, but let's not pretend the platform is only that

 

[Disgraced]

No, we I hate shitty mobile games because we I remember a time when the biggest and best developers made their money by delivering fully formed, polished, and mechanically satisfying games. These games inspired the imaginations of today's graphic artists, composers, and game masters. Whereas these shitty mobile games are inspiring tomorrow's mindless gamblers.

That's why we I hate them.

That's what you meant, right?

 

[Opiate]

The games I like are made by skilled artists passionate about their craft; the games I don't like are made by evil corporations just looking to dupe people out of their money.

 

[Version 3.0]

The games I like are made by skilled artists passionate about their craft; the games I don't like are made by evil corporations just looking to dupe people out of their money.

No need to mockingly frame it as infantile black and white as that. There's a real difference, and it's not personal preference.

Some games are made by companies whose goal is to make and sell a product that people want. Maybe they have passionate artists involved, maybe just employees, and most likely a mix of the two and everything in between.

Some games are quite literally made to "dupe people out of their money", specifically using tried-and-true methods to exploit psychological weak spots.

The lines are blurring, unfortunately, but by and large, successful console games tend to be the former, and successful mobile games the latter.

 

[88Titan88]

It's because traditional games are hard to play on mobile and people who have grown up loving traditional games feel threatened that they may go away. And they don't want them to go away.

Bloody hell, first post nails it once again.

Just adding what must have been said by others: formats and business models in mobile gaming are also different from what traditional gamers are used to, which contributes to the sentiment.

 

[Opiate]

No need to mockingly frame it as infantile black and white as that. There's a real difference, and it's not personal preference.

It is a very silly position, in my opinion.

Some games are made by companies whose goal is to make and sell a product that people want. Maybe they have passionate artists involved, maybe just employees, and most likely a mix of the two and everything in between.

Definitely agreed, in a general sense: of course some people are more passionate about what they do than others.

Some games are quite literally made to "dupe people out of their money", specifically using tried-and-true methods to exploit psychological weak spots.

The lines are blurring, unfortunately, but by and large, successful console games tend to be the former, and successful mobile games the latter.

Definitely disagreed. I believe you are quite mistaken and that your position is hugely influenced by your personal preferences. Referring to my friend mentioned earlier, you sound (to me, as an outsider) like a person who is convinced that 80s rock bands were true artists simply enjoying life, while 90s rockbands were a cynical ploy to appeal to a jaded generation.

 

[Zaventem]

This is probably the funniest post i've seen here today. I'm actually surprised this formed a full on discussion.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Considering that The Room influenced Brian Fargo's approach to puzzles and environmental interaction in the upcoming Bard Tale IV, Kojima named a mobile game his GOTY, and the platform practically revitalized interactive fiction with inkle's Sorcery, Simogo's Device 6, and others, perhaps you're underestimating the impact mobile gaming might have? I hate the shitty F2P bullshit as much as anyone, but let's not pretend the platform is only that

I was referring specifically to the Candy Crushes and Boom Beaches of the world AKA the "shitty mobile" games. Mobile can deliver great and inspiring experiences if used that way, but are those the games being played by the "cool kids" that the OP is referring to?

 

[Shengar]

Can I lazily used Terrel excellent post to express my dislikeness on mobile?

Mobile gaming fans, this is for you: take a deep breath. People are saying mean things about the industry you love, yes, but if you want it to stop, why would you go about trying to change someone's mind with the smallest possible sample of content possible? Even YOU know what the overwhelming majority of the mobile gaming industry is doing and you probably don't like it much, either. But defending that industry isn't helping anything. That small sample of games does not invalidate an entire industry practice, nor does it put to bed any of our worst fears about what will become of the industry or the games we love that are migrating towards it. So if your hope is to stop the mobile game hate, I'm sorry to say that the industry you love continuing to take a hot deuce all over it will continue to make that nearly impossible.

So to answer OP: no. I'm all for more accessibility in games. More people should be able to play many games. But not when the creator's vision become a cost, not when its limiting the medium itself. I have no problem F2P games, they can be a great model base for multiplyer game, either for competitive and coop one. But I can't see this model applied to every fucking game out there. It have greatly depressed to see Terra Battle indulge in such practice despite having story as one of its main experience. Does all mobile game use this as model? God, I'm not that dumb to believe this. There are many excellent paid mobile title out there. But as far I'm seeing it, they are exception than the norm and the norm is skinnerbox or gachapon games. Those who paid mobile games are the guys who perhaps already own a console or PC gaming in their home. The one who possibly engaged in discussion forum or in this very NeoGAF. Sadly this people money wouldn't enough to match the accumulated money of the general masses. As such, big developers who have the access to wide audience will always try to cater to this model, a model that not I'm alone seeing it as toxic.

That's what you meant, right?

By we, he means me and he and other gaffers who share his opinion. If you're not feel included no need to "fix" his post.

 

[Disgraced]

I was referring specifically to the Candy Crushes and Boom Beaches of the world AKA the "shitty mobile" games. Mobile can deliver great and inspiring experiences if used that way, but are those the games being played by the "cool kids" that the OP is referring to?

Yes? I believe that's the point. I don't think many people on NeoGAF are playing those games, and I don't think many other hardcore gamers play those games, so that leaves the 'casuals,' who are more likely to have been a "cool kid" in the past or maybe even now. And if you've never experienced being ostracized or someone else being ostracized for having an open, vested interest in "nerdy" things, then that's wonderful and I'm very happy for you. Nevermind.

By we, he means me and he and other gaffers who share his opinion. If you're not feel included no need to "fix" his post.

I'm not feel.

 

[Jebral]

Interesting idea I guess... But honestly I only stopped to drive by post

"No buttons"

I mean, that is pretty much the thing that kills every mobile game I've ever tried. Just can't get past it. I even thought that maybe something like Final Fantasy 5 would be pretty cool... But having purchased it I still prefer the GBA version. Because buttons. I know I could bluetooth a controller to my tablet or phone or whatever, but... I have some dedicated hardware sitting right beside my phone and tablet that has buttons, so no need. Simple as that to me.

Only mobile games I have ever played and enjoyed were some Rogue variant and Pixel Dungeon. And holy shit did I ever make an honest effort with mobile gaming. Just didn't work out with me. Now it's in the same pile as MMOs, as soon as I see the word, interest drops to zero and I forget it exists.

 

[ArtHands]

No, we hate shitty mobile games because we remember a time when the biggest and best developers made their money by delivering fully formed, polished, and mechanically satisfying games. These games inspired the imaginations of today's graphic artists, composers, and game masters. Whereas these shitty mobile games are inspiring tomorrow's mindless gamblers.

That's why we hate them.

That sounds like treating mobile games as a scapegoat here.

 

[Sunnington]

Do people really hate mobile games? They're not marketed to my demographic, but I don't -hate- them. Maybe people feel like if developers are focusing on the mobile market they won't focus on their demographic as heavily.

 

[shink]

I've actually nearly fully replaced portable console gaming with tablet gaming.
Things I dislike about mobile games that I've played which are F2P that limit length of play unless you pay up.

I'd rather pay a higher cost for the game to remove it. However I don't see this happening as the potential for people to pay few dollars here and there and then totaling $60+ is probably more worthwhile.

 

[Keasar]

It's because traditional games are hard to play on mobile and people who have grown up loving traditional games feel threatened that they may go away. And they don't want them to go away.

This and I think the mobile industry is a cesspool of horrible business practices. There are gems, I have a big bunch of games on my iPad I actually enjoy, but these games are in the extreme minority and often very niche and unpopular on the big mobile market as a whole.

And I also really prefer the tactile feedback from having buttons. Touchscreen works only for a very limited range of genres. Tried Monster Hunter Unite on a iphone and compared to how it played on a PSP, I really can't say it was a enjoyable experience.

 

[Pyramid head]

Sounds like the issue might be more subjective rather objective. I've found stuff like Limbo, VVVVVV, Leo's Fortune, and Penumbear to control well. I think someone who 1) has grown up with touch controls or 2) plays on regular daily basis would have little to no issue playing compared to someone who grew up with controllers and KB/M and only plays mobile on the rare occassion. Similar to how someone who switches from long time console gaming to PC might find KB/M awkward to use

I don't think the difference between controllers and KB/M are anywhere near similar to touchscreens. Both of those are at least tactile, moving, physical objects. Sliding your finger and prodding at an on-screen controller where you can't always feel if your digits are even in the right place just feels horrible and can make even great games feel like an absolute chore to play.
Mobile games like 'The Room' are fine, where you are directly touching the objects you're manipulating. Even then, blocking areas of the screen with your hand is less than ideal.

Mobiles just aren't capable of providing the types of games I enjoy.

 

[RealityCheque]

Its partly the reasons laid out in the first post,

And that mobile games are 98% shovelware bullshit.

 

[EdwardTeach]

I really don't recognise the scenario outlined in the op. I guess at school I was popular/"cool kid". No reason that liking videogames should preclude that. Now I am in my 30's with kids and couldn't give a shit about being "cool".

 

[B-Dubs]

Definitely disagreed. I believe you are quite mistaken and that your position is hugely influenced by your personal preferences. Referring to my friend mentioned earlier, you sound (to me, as an outsider) like a person who is convinced that 80s rock bands were true artists simply enjoying life, while 90s rockbands were a cynical ploy to appeal to a jaded generation.

Except 90's rock bands weren't charging extra for the guitar solo in each song every time you listed to the album.

There are some mobile games that are good, but a lot of them are really predatory in how they monetize. I saw you point out Horse Armor earlier and while I agree that it was bullshit, as is how most of the industry deals with DLC, it's nowhere near close to how a lot of the bigger mobile dens deal with monetization.

For example:

The last Fire Emblem game had DLC maps you could use to level characters or get awesome weapons, generally that's how console and handheld DLC are handled these days. You get extra maps and access to new weapons, sometimes faster leveling.

With Angry Birds, as an example though many other mobile games do this as well, you get power-ups but after you use one of them they are on a very very very long cooldown. A cooldown so long you probably won't get to use it again that playing session, unless you buy another use. That's not so bad until you realize that some, maybe not Angry Birds but other, games have levels designed around the use of these cooldowns and you either need to stop playing and wait one or two or three hours to advance or buy the cooldown.

One is optional and doesn't really affect gameplay, you can play the game without it, and the other locks sometimes needed abilities behind a paywall that people will cross, and we know they do otherwise the model would die off and no one would use it.

Equating the two can be a bit dishonest. Horse armor and things of that nature, while a dick move, had absolutely no affect on gameplay. You could make the argument about map packs in multiplayer games, but those can get a lot more use and if you play the game a lot can eventually be worth the price of admission.

That's generally why I don't give mobile games much thought. It's just too much effort to climb through all the shitty games and shittier practices to find something that might be worth the time.

 

[hesido]

*jealousy

Nice first post.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

It's because traditional games are hard to play on mobile and people who have grown up loving traditional games feel threatened that they may go away. And they don't want them to go away.

Exactly what I was thinking. Mobile games and traditional games can coexist imo, but we do not need mobile games replacing traditional games. Yeah, they probably feel threatened and admittedly sometimes i get scared that most games I always loved will end of going the mobile or F2P route. They just aren't the same to me.

 

[klee123]

Not at all.

It's more the fact that the rise of f2p gaming is causing a lot of publishers who made games I loved in the 2 decades to focus on that market at the cost of the traditional games.

I wouldn't had minded if the new trend was actually compelling, but after trying a few of the most popular games on mobile in the last few years suggests it is anything but.

 

[Haunted]

metaphor for phone culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdDxjge5hmY

wow what an asshole

 

[DSix]

No, it's because the successful mobile games are F2P cancer.