I can't help thinking how ridiculous it looks having that unwieldy HDMI breakout adapter hanging off the side of the iPad. A wifi connection between the iPad and TV would be so much more elegant.
They ought to sell an optional case that takes the cable around & out the back.
Sure but I'd reword it to say not yet. Transitions rarely happen overnight and I think these are like baby steps that need to be noticed.
Look at the two eco-systems going on right now, you have consoles that sell 50 million units in their 5 year lifespan and you sometimes lose all backwards compatibility with a new model like the PS3. iPhones are at 50 million units per year now. When the quality bar reaches a certain point, why wouldn't someone put Call of Duty on the iPhone?
Console marketing is much harder than the App Store - all a publisher needs to do is send it to Apple for approval and then it's live to everyone, no shipping, no printing and no problems with resale losing you money.
I don't expect that too many people will pay Console/PC price for an iPhone or iPad game, and I don't expect developer will port such game to iOS without charging comparable price; after all, people are not buying iOS devices for gaming, so equation is a bit more complex than with consoles (where every owner is candidate for a good game, because that is why console is purchased).
Compatibility wise, please don't forget that PS2, even if being sold still, is hardware more than 10 years old. I'm wondering if iDevices in 10 years will be compatible with present ones. Heck, I'm wondering if iOS devices in 5 years will be compatible with present ones. I think that this is actually consoles' advantage - Sony said somewhere that they are planning to support their consoles for at least 10 years, so if you buy newly released console, you can expect to have games for it next 10 years. What can iDevice owners expect? Do all current iOS games run on original iPhone and iPhone 3G?
It certainly has more RAM at 512MB vs 88MB, which makes a big difference in the texture quality but in terms of raw performance (FPS, geometry density), it's likely to be closer to the Wii. Here are videos of the iPad 2, Wii and 360 running Dead Space:
Considering how low tech the Wii is in console terms, is it the best thing to compare things to?
Yes, and I was the poster that you replied to .... but you would know that ...... if you had bothered to read ..... of course, if you're still 'reading without seeing' it doesn't matter who you're repling to ... it will still be nonsense.
No, I replied to "alandail", in fact you can follow the message back and see that for yourself, but of course, if you're still 'reading without seeing' it doesn't matter who you're repling to ... it will still be nonsense. See I can do that as well...
No offense intended, but it sounds to me like you're asking Henry Ford to build you a faster horse.
No offense taken. I'd probably ask Henry for faster car, anyway
All I'm saying is, even if all of them are called "video games", in most cases today they are that much different that I don't expect one segment will hurt the other. even portable consoles don't seem to be hurting much - new Nintendo 3Ds is said to be best-seller ever - and they are, concept wise, much closer to iDevices than desktop consoles.
Quote:
A major change between then and now is the "impulse buy". Back in the good ol' days, if you wanted a game, you'd have to get in your car, drive down to the store (with cash or credit card in hand), select the game you want, pick it up, take it to the counter, and buy it. Many, many opportunities there to change your mind. More recently, you could order online--but you're still ordering a physical product--and then wait, a day or two or more, to receive it. Still you have an opportunity to change your mind: if you decided you don't want it, you can return the package, unopened, and get your refund. $40-80 is not cheap (or maybe I'm just poor... but I digress).
With the App Store, the customer is much more likely to click on "Buy" if the game is $1 or $5 or $10, simply because it looks intriguing, the reviews look good, the graphics look awesome and so on. Besides, if the game sucks, then you're only out a few bucks. Buyer's remorse is minimized, which makes the customer less hesitant in regard to future purchases.
You can download games from Steam (on PC) and PSN (on PS3) as well... both pocket-size ones and big ones. I just got Move-enabled Flight Control for a few bucks recently. I'm pretty sure I've seen some of Angry Birds flavors as well. Still I don't think those "snack-size" games are hurting "full-featured" games, whatever platform they run on.
Quote:
The developer wins as well, because, even if the "unit revenue" is reduced, so is their production/marketing cost. No distribution channels to hassle with, no manufacturing costs, etc. Part of the reason "Tier A" games cost so much is because they got caught in a kind of positive feedback loop: They put a lot of time and energy--and money into development of the game (cost 1), so now they have to market it--TV ads, print ads, posters, cross-merchandising, etc. (cost 2). They have to charge more per unit because of costs 1 & 2, so that they can make a profit. But this means promoting it more, so that they can sell more units (cost 2+).
With online distribution, marketing becomes viral, via word of mouth, user reviews, "popularity", etc.--assuming your game doesn't suck. That greatly reduces your marketing costs (cost 2-). So, minus the cut that Apple takes (in the case of iOS), all the rest of the money is yours.
I don't disagree with you on this one. I sad I'm sure huge number of people will enjoy mobile games, both iOS and Android, but they will not come from cross-over console players.
Quote:
So, it would be much more difficult to sell, say, 10 million units [of your game] in a physical media format at $40 a pop, than to get 40 million impulse-motivated "Buy" clicks at $10 each. In fact, you could potentially make more money with 40 million $5 App Store sales than 10 million $40 DVD sales, because of how much less you're paying for marketing and distribution.
Here I tend to disagree. I don't expect to see $10 game that will sell 40 million copies, or even close to that. Some of the best selling PS2 games - say GT3 and GT4 - have sold less than 15 millions each, even if PS2 console count is above 130 millions. I might be wrong here, though - what are the numbers for best selling iOS games?
Quote:
These are technological technicalities. I'm sure there are some pretty bright minds already working on solutions (more flash storage, higher bandwidth, etc.).
Let's talk about present. I'm pretty sure PS4 will be mind-boggling device, likewise games for it, but that will happen only when it happens
Apple has a penchant for selling all sorts of adaptors for $30-$40.
The iPad 3 no doubt will have an HDMI port.
You make a strong statement, but I think you will see Apple sticking to the 30 pin connector as the only port it has to include in the ipad body. All other connectors and ports will be via adapters perhaps like the camera connection kits. From a manufacturing point of view this saves tons of dollars and makes for an easy upgrade path w/o having to change the base unit.
I don't see any advantage in offering the Xoom approach with lots of legacy ports ... who wants a bunch of cables attached to a hand held portable device.
Wireless linking will provide all the other connection schemes. But no new ports ... I would truly be surprised otherwise.
Comments
1st place. What did I win?
This is pretty cool stuff.
I can't help thinking how ridiculous it looks having that unwieldy HDMI breakout adapter hanging off the side of the iPad. A wifi connection between the iPad and TV would be so much more elegant.
They ought to sell an optional case that takes the cable around & out the back.
Sure but I'd reword it to say not yet. Transitions rarely happen overnight and I think these are like baby steps that need to be noticed.
Look at the two eco-systems going on right now, you have consoles that sell 50 million units in their 5 year lifespan and you sometimes lose all backwards compatibility with a new model like the PS3. iPhones are at 50 million units per year now. When the quality bar reaches a certain point, why wouldn't someone put Call of Duty on the iPhone?
Console marketing is much harder than the App Store - all a publisher needs to do is send it to Apple for approval and then it's live to everyone, no shipping, no printing and no problems with resale losing you money.
I don't expect that too many people will pay Console/PC price for an iPhone or iPad game, and I don't expect developer will port such game to iOS without charging comparable price; after all, people are not buying iOS devices for gaming, so equation is a bit more complex than with consoles (where every owner is candidate for a good game, because that is why console is purchased).
Compatibility wise, please don't forget that PS2, even if being sold still, is hardware more than 10 years old. I'm wondering if iDevices in 10 years will be compatible with present ones. Heck, I'm wondering if iOS devices in 5 years will be compatible with present ones. I think that this is actually consoles' advantage - Sony said somewhere that they are planning to support their consoles for at least 10 years, so if you buy newly released console, you can expect to have games for it next 10 years. What can iDevice owners expect? Do all current iOS games run on original iPhone and iPhone 3G?
It certainly has more RAM at 512MB vs 88MB, which makes a big difference in the texture quality but in terms of raw performance (FPS, geometry density), it's likely to be closer to the Wii. Here are videos of the iPad 2, Wii and 360 running Dead Space:
Considering how low tech the Wii is in console terms, is it the best thing to compare things to?
Yes, and I was the poster that you replied to .... but you would know that ...... if you had bothered to read ..... of course, if you're still 'reading without seeing' it doesn't matter who you're repling to ... it will still be nonsense.
No, I replied to "alandail", in fact you can follow the message back and see that for yourself, but of course, if you're still 'reading without seeing' it doesn't matter who you're repling to ... it will still be nonsense. See I can do that as well...
No offense intended, but it sounds to me like you're asking Henry Ford to build you a faster horse.
No offense taken. I'd probably ask Henry for faster car, anyway
All I'm saying is, even if all of them are called "video games", in most cases today they are that much different that I don't expect one segment will hurt the other. even portable consoles don't seem to be hurting much - new Nintendo 3Ds is said to be best-seller ever - and they are, concept wise, much closer to iDevices than desktop consoles.
A major change between then and now is the "impulse buy". Back in the good ol' days, if you wanted a game, you'd have to get in your car, drive down to the store (with cash or credit card in hand), select the game you want, pick it up, take it to the counter, and buy it. Many, many opportunities there to change your mind. More recently, you could order online--but you're still ordering a physical product--and then wait, a day or two or more, to receive it. Still you have an opportunity to change your mind: if you decided you don't want it, you can return the package, unopened, and get your refund. $40-80 is not cheap (or maybe I'm just poor... but I digress).
With the App Store, the customer is much more likely to click on "Buy" if the game is $1 or $5 or $10, simply because it looks intriguing, the reviews look good, the graphics look awesome and so on. Besides, if the game sucks, then you're only out a few bucks. Buyer's remorse is minimized, which makes the customer less hesitant in regard to future purchases.
You can download games from Steam (on PC) and PSN (on PS3) as well... both pocket-size ones and big ones. I just got Move-enabled Flight Control for a few bucks recently. I'm pretty sure I've seen some of Angry Birds flavors as well. Still I don't think those "snack-size" games are hurting "full-featured" games, whatever platform they run on.
The developer wins as well, because, even if the "unit revenue" is reduced, so is their production/marketing cost. No distribution channels to hassle with, no manufacturing costs, etc. Part of the reason "Tier A" games cost so much is because they got caught in a kind of positive feedback loop: They put a lot of time and energy--and money into development of the game (cost 1), so now they have to market it--TV ads, print ads, posters, cross-merchandising, etc. (cost 2). They have to charge more per unit because of costs 1 & 2, so that they can make a profit. But this means promoting it more, so that they can sell more units (cost 2+).
With online distribution, marketing becomes viral, via word of mouth, user reviews, "popularity", etc.--assuming your game doesn't suck. That greatly reduces your marketing costs (cost 2-). So, minus the cut that Apple takes (in the case of iOS), all the rest of the money is yours.
I don't disagree with you on this one. I sad I'm sure huge number of people will enjoy mobile games, both iOS and Android, but they will not come from cross-over console players.
So, it would be much more difficult to sell, say, 10 million units [of your game] in a physical media format at $40 a pop, than to get 40 million impulse-motivated "Buy" clicks at $10 each. In fact, you could potentially make more money with 40 million $5 App Store sales than 10 million $40 DVD sales, because of how much less you're paying for marketing and distribution.
Here I tend to disagree. I don't expect to see $10 game that will sell 40 million copies, or even close to that. Some of the best selling PS2 games - say GT3 and GT4 - have sold less than 15 millions each, even if PS2 console count is above 130 millions. I might be wrong here, though - what are the numbers for best selling iOS games?
These are technological technicalities. I'm sure there are some pretty bright minds already working on solutions (more flash storage, higher bandwidth, etc.).
Let's talk about present. I'm pretty sure PS4 will be mind-boggling device, likewise games for it, but that will happen only when it happens
No, I replied to "alandail", in fact you can follow the message back and see that for yourself,.... .
Post 133 proves that you're either wrong or lying .... your choice.
Post 133 proves that you're either wrong or lying .... your choice.
Which links back to post #122, which links back to post #105 in which I reply to alandail.
You replied to me, which proves that you're either wrong or lying .... your choice.
Apple has a penchant for selling all sorts of adaptors for $30-$40.
The iPad 3 no doubt will have an HDMI port.
You make a strong statement, but I think you will see Apple sticking to the 30 pin connector as the only port it has to include in the ipad body. All other connectors and ports will be via adapters perhaps like the camera connection kits. From a manufacturing point of view this saves tons of dollars and makes for an easy upgrade path w/o having to change the base unit.
I don't see any advantage in offering the Xoom approach with lots of legacy ports ... who wants a bunch of cables attached to a hand held portable device.
Wireless linking will provide all the other connection schemes. But no new ports ... I would truly be surprised otherwise.
Which links back to post #122, which links back to post #105 in which I reply to alandail.
You replied to me, which proves that you're either wrong or lying .... your choice.
This is a classic response of someone who has nothing to say but still says it!
This is a classic response of someone who has nothing to say but still says it!
What? Proving you were wrong? If you can't accept a simple fact that you were wong, then I don't really care. Get over it.