• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

(NYTIMES) Absences Speak Loudly at Video Game Expo

At first I laughed at that Nintendo/Apple quote and thought "That's not how it works..." but then I realized his point would be that it would be nice to see Nintendo try something new or to adapt similar to how Sony is experimenting with the PS Suite/Xperia Play. It would be interesting but yeah, not likely or necessary.
 
Nintendo went through a period of printing money with the DS by offering games that are now easier and cheaper to get on smartphones.

But other than that, I fail to see how the iPhone, Facebook, Zynga, etc. are really meant to impact the kind of console gaming that I've been playing for 25 years in a meaningful way.

Why didn't this article talk about OnLive?
 
jonnybryce said:
At first I laughed at that Nintendo/Apple quote and thought "That's not how it works..." but then I realized his point would be that it would be nice to see Nintendo try something new or to adapt similar to how Sony is experimenting with the PS Suite/Xperia Play. It would be interesting but yeah, not likely or necessary.
and Sony make and sell phones.

if i had a question it's why Microsoft didn't make more of Windows Phone at their conference. it's a great platform which they own and which is good for gaming, that's really only lacking in the kind of marketing push that Kinect got.

but then hey, that's sort of like asking where all the PC games were.
 
Minsc said:
I've been playing Birth by Sleep lately, and I'm not finding it to be a ton more fun than stuff I've bought for $1 on iOS. It's a good game, and enjoyable, but not the best thing ever or anything.

There is no equivalent to Birth by Sleep in iOS, Chaos Rings would be the closer thing and it´s not even close to the production values of Birth by Sleep. Maybe Birth by Sleep it´s not your cup of tea, that doesn't change the fact that there is nothing equivalent on iOS, and I even doubt it could happen under that model.

You can enjoy more your Plants Vs Zombie, that is fair, but I wouldn't want gaming reduced to that. $1 Games just go so far for me.
 
I've had a few debates with some Applehead super boosters who "used to be" console and portable gamers but now only play games on their iPads and iPhones. I realized that these guys were "the hidden casuals" in gaming. Sure, they bought Grand Theft Auto and maybe a few other games that supposedly marked them as mainstream traditional gamers. But they didn't really care about video games for their own sake. They just wanted reactive eyes entertainment (*waves to Yu Suzuki*). Apple's products are cool, hip, and what every good nerd "should" own, so once they found out they could get 99 cent to $5 games there, that was good enough for them.

Makes me wonder... I long theorized about a hidden bubble surrounding gaming, relating to the faux-mature crowd Sony managed to rope in with their Playstation brand, and Microsoft took advantage of with the Xbox. Guys who were the sort that would never have played any video games before, when they were "Too stupid and nerdy/kiddy looking". Goes for playing games on PC too, mind you; still too nerdy.

The game industry has thrown itself at the feet of this sort of customer, the person who bought Playstation 'cause it was Just Like TeeVee but funny 'cause pressing buttons made stuff happen. Hell, game design has become contorted around making sure anybody can get through their interactive movie without being challenged.

What if these customers are just as unreliable as the supposed "casuals" that everyone sneered about Nintendo chasing with the Wii? The moment something's cooler than Playstation, they're gone, zoom.
 
I don't understand why EVERY game journuls has Apple's genitalia in their mouths. Out of fear of being irrelevant themselves?
 
Riposte said:
I don't understand why EVERY game journuls has Apple's genitalia in their mouths. Out of fear of being irrelevant themselves?

It's what they know about in gaming, so they write about it. It's also all they know about in gaming, so that's what everything is to them in what they write too, sadly.
 
Riposte said:
I don't understand why EVERY game journuls has Apple's genitalia in their mouths. Out of fear of being irrelevant themselves?

I don't think it's every journalist, as most real gaming journalist understands the two totally different segments. The quasi-gaming journalist can't tell the differences between real full-fledged gaming and social-network/mobile phone type gaming experiences, and thinks that a .99 game is on equal footing to a $60 AAA experience on a purpose built medium, for whatever reason. And it's blatantly obvious too:

Tablets: Simplified mobile PC -> Media -> Gaming
Consoles: Gaming -> Media -> simplified PC (in some cases)

So it's easy to see where you're going to get the better (best?) experiences in said features depending on the device.
 
Hero said:
Everything in that article is wrong. Excellent 'journalism.'
Good. Now apply this knowledge to journalism in general, of all fields, with very few exceptions. It's not that political journalism, for example, is better. We just aren't intimately familiar enough with its subject-matters to find out that those covering it aren't either.
 
Just the normal boosterism for Apple (and mobile computing in general) from the pages of mainstream media tech sections. The New York Times alone rarely lets a week pass without reporting something revolving around an iOS device... Does the platform really require that level of coverage, when weighed against everything else happening in the tech space?
 
If you view handheld gaming as some diversion to take up a few minutes of your time, iOS is fine. But, if you actually want to play good games than owning just an iOS device is like being an FPS fan with a Wii. Yes, there are shooters on the Wii but you can play games that look better , that are more complex, and larger on other platforms. Anytime some iOS games bubbles to the top, I get it and then I think “I’d rather be playing Dragon Quest VI” or any other of a number of games.
 
I've always been under the impression it's impossible for large companies to compete in the mobile game market. It's games like Angry Birds that are successful, but how often does a game like Angry Birds come around? It's financially irresponsible to dump large amounts of funds into making a quality game for iOS or other mobile markets. It's a market that will be dominated by niche games that become viral. No need to gamble there.
 
An employee showed off new Electronic Arts games, using an Apple iPad 2 plugged into a large flat-screen television. As he played a first-person-shooter video game, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, it seemed as if the iPad was essentially the controller for the game. No expensive gaming console was necessary.


I know Ipads can do lots of things, but this makes in seem like iPad 2's are commodity goods..sheesh
 
Acullis said:
I've always been under the impression it's impossible for large companies to compete in the mobile game market. It's games like Angry Birds that are successful, but how often does a game like Angry Birds come around? It's financially irresponsible to dump large amounts of funds into making a quality game for iOS or other mobile markets. It's a market that will be dominated by niche games that become viral. No need to gamble there.

That's why big companies figured out what to do from the start: don't bother pouring money into the platform, just make it into the ultimate port machine. Easy supplemental income.
 
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/15/console-vs-pc-redux-how-mobile-gaming-will-reshape-the-industr/
They're a growing threat, these simple games with their simple designs, simple controls, and simple graphics. They don't offer the full, premium experience that the real gamers want. They aren't hardcore enough. They aren't serious enough. They're just too... casual.

In the '90s these were all complaints used to describe the strengthening console menace. Back then, a younger me squandered his meager income at the local Babbage's or Electronics Boutique, stores full of PC games in cardboard boxes -- console titles relegated to a few little shelves. It wouldn't take long for those consoles to take over those stores and, along the way, the entire industry. Between just 1998 and 2006 console software sales more than doubled, from $2.5 billion to $6.7 billion, while PC game sales dropped from $1.8 billion to $970 million. Even the FPS, once exclusive domain of the PC, is now a console enterprise, with Call of Duty: Black Ops launching on 4.9 million sales on the Xbox 360 and PS3. The PC version, meanwhile, sold less than 400,000 copies (the NPD lumped them in with sales of the Nintendo DS and Wii versions).

Who cares about ancient history? If you're a gamer you should, because it's happening again. This time, though, its console gamers lobbing the same lamentations at Angry Bird players, Words With Friends addicts, and ever-sneaky Fruit Ninjas. As smartphones and tablets get more powerful, the dedicated gaming machine looks more and more quaint. Where once software supported hardware in one big, happy family, it's all becoming rather more... disjointed. For a gamer like me, that's a little troubling. If app gaming does for consoles what those consoles did to the PC scene a decade ago, a lot of big game studios are going to be in trouble, and a lot of gamers are going to be pining for the good 'ol days.

It's hard to tell at what point mobile gaming became a serious threat to the console scene, but surely nobody at Nintendo lost any sleep when Snake crawled its way into the hearts of many a Nokia user back in the late '90s. Then, just a few years later, Steve Jobs started comparing iPod sales to those of dedicated gaming machines. I initially thought the very notion was preposterous; that an iPod didn't hold a candle to the DS and PSP I took with me on every flight. In the ensuing months, however, I've changed my tune.

In recent years we haven't exactly seen a lot of innovation on the console gaming front. Sure, there was a giant rush to jump on the motion gaming bandwagon -- Microsoft with the Kinect and Sony with the Move, even Nintendo sauntering back in with the MotionPlus -- but none of those technologies have delivered the new gameplay experiences that even grizzled veterans like myself secretly hoped they might. Nor have they succeeded in whetting my appetite for something truly new. As someone whose youth was punctuated by a three-year console cycle, booting up the same 'ol hardware almost six years later feels wrong.

On the portable gaming front things are moving -- but slowly. Over the past seven or so years Nintendo and Sony have both been slowly refining their portable systems of choice, but not even Nintendo's glasses-free 3D technology really qualifies as something particularly innovative. It is, after all, just another graphics technique, no more important than texture mapping or anti-aliasing, things that revolutionized the way our games look, but not how they play.

With nothing really changing it's mighty easy for the others to catch up, and of course those others are the smartphones, the iPods, and the tablets. They aren't there yet -- the Samsung Galaxy S II has a dual-core processor running at 1GHz while the Xbox 360 has 3.2Ghz spread over three cores -- but mobile devices are gaining ground quick. And, with services like OnLive, one could say that hardware no longer matters.

Regardless, hardware is losing its importance. Going back to the PC vs. console war, the consoles never had the upper-hand, or if they did it wasn't for long. Whenever I'd be wowed by a new system at E3, NVIDIA or ATI or somebody else would come along with a fresh slab of PCI, AGP, or PCIe and blow my mind. That single card would inevitably cost more than an entire gaming console (and require a new power supply and cooling rig to go along with it), but the PC's place as the pinnacle of graphics perfection has never been in doubt -- if you had the money.

Yet still the consoles drank the PC gaming scene's milkshake, and better graphics here aren't going to save dedicated systems from what looks to be impending mobile doom. And it will mean doom for many. The industry has been propped up to massive heights by huge sales of $60 blockbuster games, titles carefully honed by hundreds of pairs of hands brought together at massive development studios. Meanwhile, the most popular mobile downloads cost $9.99 or less, way less, and it remains to be seen whether mobile gamers would ever dream of spending six times that on a single game, even a proper release like Gears of War. Those publishers that focus exclusively on "big" releases are going to have a hard time adapting.

While we'll surely get one more generation of great dedicated gaming hardware from the big three, I have my fears that it will be the last. Sony sees the writing on the wall, with its (currently half-assed) PlayStation Suite program for devices, and Microsoft is testing the waters with Xbox Live integration on Windows Phone. It's only a matter of time before everybody's following suit -- or getting left behind. But don't worry, console gamers, because it's not all bad news. We're actually on the verge of some very interesting changes which, believe it or not, could work out for the best. Think about it: all modern phones have Bluetooth, so connecting external gaming controllers is easy -- even a keyboard and mouse. HDMI output is now more-or-less standard, and hopefully WHDI ubiquity isn't far off.

We'll soon live in a world where you can get your Angry Birds fix on the train and then, when you get home, drop your phone into a charging stand, drop yourself onto the couch, and enjoy Drake's next big adventure in 1080p with a real controller in your hands. Significant other want to watch TV? Just keep playing on the smaller screen -- similar to what Nintendo is talking up with its Wii U, but minus the throwback console middleman.

Assuming this comes to pass, and I think it will, home gaming will never quite be the same. As someone who still gets excited about the next big console, ripping open exotic new games in curiously colored boxes, getting a whiff of the freshly printed manual inside, I don't think activating a new smartphone and downloading a launch title will ever deliver the same thrill. But, the first time I get to play a little Halo or Uncharted or Modern Warfare from coach class at 30,000 feet, and do so with full graphics and gameplay, I think I'll probably get over it.
Mobile gaming is revenge for what consoles did to PC Gaming, now the shoe is on the other foot and the more PC-like more open platforms are in ascendancy.
 
Metal Gear?! said:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/15/console-vs-pc-redux-how-mobile-gaming-will-reshape-the-industr/

Mobile gaming is revenge for what consoles did to PC Gaming, now the shoe is on the other foot and the more PC-like more open platforms are in ascendancy.

Just because PC games had deeper strategy games doesn't mean it had better designed action games than consoles(and arcades). It is not like phones are going to bring complex strategy game mechanics back into the light(the best you can hope for are board game ports). PC -> consoles -> phone can be considered one movement. People who like strategy games are less prominent than people who like action games and people who like videogames are less prominent than people who sort of like videogames(which is also what happened with consoles, but to much smaller extent).

Also: "Grizzled veterans". I think "burnt-out novelty-seeker" also fits. A site about technology will never really understand videogames(or movies, etc) beyond a superficial manner because they are all about chasing the New™. "Innovations" don't exist when they are not obvious.
 
Riposte said:
Just because PC games had deeper strategy games doesn't mean it had better designed action games than consoles(and arcades). It is not like phones are going to bring complex strategy game mechanics back into the light(the best you can hope for are board game ports). PC -> consoles -> phone can be considered one movement. People who like strategy games are less prominent than people who like action games and people who like videogames are less prominent than people who sort of like videogames(which is also what happened with consoles, but to much smaller extent).

Also: "Grizzled veterans". I think "burnt-out novelty-seeker" also fits. A site about technology will never really understand videogames(or movies, etc) beyond a superficial manner because they are all about chasing the New™. "Innovations" don't exist when they are not obvious.
Mobile gaming is one of the growing, not declining sectors, so that is where the money and talent is going.

This is not the same as PC or console gaming going away, they are being eclipsed however.
 
Top Bottom