But, you have to also consider that it probably takes 100 times as many man hours creating Halo. So, if in that same time you could make 100 Angry Birds type games, then the equation becomes much different.
Also, as an additional thing to remember, I would say best case scenario that only half purchased Halo at full price (which I think was $49 at the time if I remember correctly). Also, another thing to remember if manufacturing costs, distribution costs, defect costs (bad disc, etc)…. All of that adds up against the Halo argument, whereas Angry Birds is still at 50M.
If I'm to belive things I read here and on macrumors. A lot of it does not corespond to the reality I see around me. Apple revolutionized...apple owns...apple most blabla...the "Apple sonn to dominate the worlds"- ish kind.
This game thing is one of them. I do not know a single gamer (and I knows lots, inkl myself) who considers iOS a serious gaming platform. Everyone around me plats PC, PS, Xbox and nintendo games. And funny enough...It is rare seeing anyone I know or see in public places with a iPhone or other touchphone spending any time gaming at all.
What am I missing....
You're missing the fact that YOU don't get to determine what a gaming platform is or isn't.
Apple has sold billions of games for iOS. Obviously, lots of people are playing games on their iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. The fact that it doesn't meet YOUR standards for what constitutes a game is irrelevant.
You're like the car nuts who think that the only cars that count are those that have 600 HP and go 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. By that standard, Ferrari has a 50% market share and Toyota and GM don't even exist.
Also, as an additional thing to remember, I would say best case scenario that only half purchased Halo at full price (which I think was $49 at the time if I remember correctly). Also, another thing to remember if manufacturing costs, distribution costs, defect costs (bad disc, etc)?. All of that adds up against the Halo argument, whereas Angry Birds is still at 50M.
Franchise games make a crap ton of money. That is why they are still such a big deal. Modern Warfare which will be release next week is predicted to make a over a billion in revenue during the first six months (http://www.psu.com/Modern-Warfare-3-...a013489-p0.php)
You're missing the fact that YOU don't get to determine what a gaming platform is or isn't.
Apple has sold billions of games for iOS. Obviously, lots of people are playing games on their iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. The fact that it doesn't meet YOUR standards for what constitutes a game is irrelevant.
You're like the car nuts who think that the only cars that count are those that have 600 HP and go 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. By that standard, Ferrari has a 50% market share and Toyota and GM don't even exist.
GM has a production car with over 600 hp. And another that is pretty damn close. I think the Car/Apple analogies are getting a bit old.
I think that's the reason Apple didn't score higher. There's still a dichotomy in the market where a lot of 'l33t' people think that only their games matter. if it's not super high frame rates at high resolutions with bad guys approaching you from all directions and you shooting bazillions of weapons, it's no good. That's BS.
There are different kinds of games for different people. Not everyone wants to play "World of Halo Civilization Deathmatch Killer Zombieland" or whatever the 'cool' people are playing these days.
You're absolutely right. One of the things Nintendo found when they released the Wii (which was derided by "hardcore" gamers) was that less power, but with simpler games that were easy to pickup and play, expanded their market dramatically.
Not everyone wants to sit in a darkened room with a monster PC shooting similar people on the other side of the world.
...Except when he does compromise, like when he caved and allowed for apps on iOS. Sometimes it pays to listen to people
Do you have some support for such a silly comment? Do you really believe that they did not intend for apps to be developed for the iOS platform in the manner in which they actually developed? Did you really think that Apple woke up one morning, looked out the window, saw a big group of app developed camped on the front lawn and said, "well if we don't let them create apps, they won't go away?"
If I'm to belive things I read here and on macrumors. A lot of it does not corespond to the reality I see around me. Apple revolutionized...apple owns...apple most blabla...the "Apple sonn to dominate the worlds"- ish kind.
This game thing is one of them. I do not know a single gamer (and I knows lots, inkl myself) who considers iOS a serious gaming platform. Everyone around me plats PC, PS, Xbox and nintendo games. And funny enough...It is rare seeing anyone I know or see in public places with a iPhone or other touchphone spending any time gaming at all.
What am I missing....
The "hardcore" gamers are a small percentage of the population. That's what you're missing. I was a hardcore gamer myself, putting in years worth of playtime on various first person shooters and spent 10 years playing mmorpgs. My platform of choice has always been windows, but I also own a ps3 and wii. But like many others, I'm no longer a hardcore gamer. I rarely play a game if any at all and the games on ios are pretty impressive, especially when sitting on the toilet or while waiting somewhere.
First of I don't think Steve deserves the first slot, but I am old school and I remember what Nintendo did for the industry back in the 80s, but this is besides the point.
I think it's interesting that so many people think this is a pure money thing. Sure the money factor is a motivator for some, and they have their voice in the industry, but just remember you can have the most creative team in the world it does not mean you have the funds to make Halo. Sometimes you just have the money to make small games like the ones you see on Direct Download systems and mobile OSs.
The iOS really blew the doors open for a lot of small devs out there. There are some people out there who just want to make great games and would not be able to with out this market out there.
IMHO, if Apple offered the iphone and ipod touch in a gaming centric(tactile buttons) BTO(build to order), Nintendo's game boy and the psp and vita would be destroyed market wise.
With sales like that it's clear that Halo won't compete.
You are a little off there on price. The Angry Birds game was $2.99 when it started out and fell to $0.99 on the iOS app store. It is a FREE ad based game on Android which I am sure is included in those download totals.
Call of Duty Black Ops, last year sold over 7 million copies it's first weekend of release, worldwide. At $60.00 a copy I'd take that revenue any day of the week over a mobile game which took two years to reach 350 million downloads total.
For the sake of argument:
$2.99 x 350 million - 30% in 2 years = $314 million
$60.00 x 7 million in 2 days = $420 million
Of course the $420 million isn't pure profit but the $2.99 price is being very generous considering Angry Birds is now a $0.99 game and comes free through the Android marketplace.
This doesn't even include the overpriced limited edition sets of Call of Duty Black Ops or the DLC from Black Ops. Sorry but a mobile phone game might sell more over time on different platforms but the money they make is a drop in the bucket compared to console quality games and pricing.
EDIT: I should add the difference can be said that Angry Birds more than any other mobile game is a sort of juggernaut and not really the reality of mobile gaming. They are raking in the money from expanding the franchise to other areas (not just gaming). Plush dolls, game boards, movies will make that franchise. Not every mobile game sells that well or is that sticky in a consumer's eye. Console games sell in high numbers all the time for the popular franchises.
This poll was conducted at an iOS gaming conference soon after SJ died so I am sure in noway it is bias This same group of superstars gave Mark Zukerberg 3% of the vote.
With sales like that it's clear that Halo won't compete.
WOW, way to skew the numbers. All angry bird versions are FREE on Android, and alot are FREE on the itouch. Even the ones you have to pay for are only 99 cents.
Franchise games make a crap ton of money. That is why they are still such a big deal. Modern Warfare which will be release next week is predicted to make a over a billion in revenue during the first six months (http://www.psu.com/Modern-Warfare-3-...a013489-p0.php)
They will have to sell nearly 17M copies at $60 each to make a billion, unless there is downloadable pay content being sold as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy
Do you have some support for such a silly comment? Do you really believe that they did not intend for apps to be developed for the iOS platform in the manner in which they actually developed? Did you really think that Apple woke up one morning, looked out the window, saw a big group of app developed camped on the front lawn and said, "well if we don't let them create apps, they won't go away?"
Cupidity at its finest!
Oh gee, you mean like reading Steve's biography? Here's an article that discusses it. It mentions that several executives petitioned him about calls out 2, but I've seen Forstall's name listed chiefly over the last several years whenever it's brought up. If you will recall, when the iPhone came out Steve said no to apps and that if people wanted apps they could design web apps. Eventually his viewpoint was changed and it's a good thing it was. Steve was not perfect or all-knowing.
Think of it this way. Let say there are 50 million Xbox's out there and maybe 50% of those play Halo. Vs 100 million iOS devices and 50% of them play Angry birds.
Halo cost $59
AB cost $.99
Which cost more to develop?
Which cost more to support?
In the end game makers want to make money. Making money is sales - cost = profit
Maybe, but many AAA games these days are considered art. While the publishers like EA may dump AAA titles any moment they like for simpler and more profitable games, the studios themselves will always keep doing AAA titles.
And we could have some on the App Store... *if* someone proved touch controls can be reasonable (with proper software implementation) OR released an accessory with AT LEAST an analog stick (virtual or not) and two shoulder buttons. Every single studio is studying the iOS closely, and have only chosen not to act because they are still not sure they can get something big and good to the iOS platform, regardless of whether the graphics themselves are lagging behind the 2007 generation of consoles (for now...)
IMHO, if Apple offered the iphone and ipod touch in a gaming centric(tactile buttons) BTO(build to order), Nintendo's game boy and the psp and vita would be destroyed market wise.
They'd never, ever do that. That's completely un-Apple
Release an accessory with absurd price, however, effectively telling the industry "Here it is you bunch of idiots, now can you please make a bunch of them so our developers can start making some great games", is totally something Apple would do....
The "hardcore" gamers are a small percentage of the population. That's what you're missing. I was a hardcore gamer myself, putting in years worth of playtime on various first person shooters and spent 10 years playing mmorpgs.
See, that's your problem. You've only played games of the two most repetitive genres of all
Although I like shooting and all, I prefer combat when it's only part of the experience. Think Deus Ex, Uncharted...
Initially, I disagreed with the idea that Steve was that influential to the game industry. It certainly wasn't his intention to build a game platform originally. But the platform turned out to be pretty awesome for games--and by platform I mean not only the hardware chips, touch screen, gyroscopes, and the App Store platform which gave game developers a way to skip publishers like Electronic Arts and sell straight to the gamer. Then I realized how big a difference Steve made to the industry. Before the iPhone and iPod Touch there were games on mobile phones, but the platforms were laughably awful: either Java BREW phones or something like the Nokia N-Gage. The games on the Palm Treo and BlackBerry were not much better.
You're missing the fact that YOU don't get to determine what a gaming platform is or isn't.
hey! I never claimed to do that! I only said what I observe in my daily life...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're like the car nuts who think that the only cars that count are those that have 600 HP and go 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. By that standard, Ferrari has a 50% market share and Toyota and GM don't even exist.
not into cars...but when you mention that kind of thought pattern...I have a Mac Pro ;D
Comments
But, you have to also consider that it probably takes 100 times as many man hours creating Halo. So, if in that same time you could make 100 Angry Birds type games, then the equation becomes much different.
Also, as an additional thing to remember, I would say best case scenario that only half purchased Halo at full price (which I think was $49 at the time if I remember correctly). Also, another thing to remember if manufacturing costs, distribution costs, defect costs (bad disc, etc)…. All of that adds up against the Halo argument, whereas Angry Birds is still at 50M.
Ok, I need to get this straight.
If I'm to belive things I read here and on macrumors. A lot of it does not corespond to the reality I see around me. Apple revolutionized...apple owns...apple most blabla...the "Apple sonn to dominate the worlds"- ish kind.
This game thing is one of them. I do not know a single gamer (and I knows lots, inkl myself) who considers iOS a serious gaming platform. Everyone around me plats PC, PS, Xbox and nintendo games. And funny enough...It is rare seeing anyone I know or see in public places with a iPhone or other touchphone spending any time gaming at all.
What am I missing....
You're missing the fact that YOU don't get to determine what a gaming platform is or isn't.
Apple has sold billions of games for iOS. Obviously, lots of people are playing games on their iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. The fact that it doesn't meet YOUR standards for what constitutes a game is irrelevant.
You're like the car nuts who think that the only cars that count are those that have 600 HP and go 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. By that standard, Ferrari has a 50% market share and Toyota and GM don't even exist.
Also, as an additional thing to remember, I would say best case scenario that only half purchased Halo at full price (which I think was $49 at the time if I remember correctly). Also, another thing to remember if manufacturing costs, distribution costs, defect costs (bad disc, etc)?. All of that adds up against the Halo argument, whereas Angry Birds is still at 50M.
Franchise games make a crap ton of money. That is why they are still such a big deal. Modern Warfare which will be release next week is predicted to make a over a billion in revenue during the first six months (http://www.psu.com/Modern-Warfare-3-...a013489-p0.php)
You're missing the fact that YOU don't get to determine what a gaming platform is or isn't.
Apple has sold billions of games for iOS. Obviously, lots of people are playing games on their iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad. The fact that it doesn't meet YOUR standards for what constitutes a game is irrelevant.
You're like the car nuts who think that the only cars that count are those that have 600 HP and go 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. By that standard, Ferrari has a 50% market share and Toyota and GM don't even exist.
GM has a production car with over 600 hp. And another that is pretty damn close. I think the Car/Apple analogies are getting a bit old.
I think that's the reason Apple didn't score higher. There's still a dichotomy in the market where a lot of 'l33t' people think that only their games matter. if it's not super high frame rates at high resolutions with bad guys approaching you from all directions and you shooting bazillions of weapons, it's no good. That's BS.
There are different kinds of games for different people. Not everyone wants to play "World of Halo Civilization Deathmatch Killer Zombieland" or whatever the 'cool' people are playing these days.
You're absolutely right. One of the things Nintendo found when they released the Wii (which was derided by "hardcore" gamers) was that less power, but with simpler games that were easy to pickup and play, expanded their market dramatically.
Not everyone wants to sit in a darkened room with a monster PC shooting similar people on the other side of the world.
http://www.videogamesblogger.com/201...50-million.htm
With sales like that it's clear that Halo won't compete.
...Except when he does compromise, like when he caved and allowed for apps on iOS. Sometimes it pays to listen to people
Do you have some support for such a silly comment? Do you really believe that they did not intend for apps to be developed for the iOS platform in the manner in which they actually developed? Did you really think that Apple woke up one morning, looked out the window, saw a big group of app developed camped on the front lawn and said, "well if we don't let them create apps, they won't go away?"
Cupidity at its finest!
Ok, I need to get this straight.
If I'm to belive things I read here and on macrumors. A lot of it does not corespond to the reality I see around me. Apple revolutionized...apple owns...apple most blabla...the "Apple sonn to dominate the worlds"- ish kind.
This game thing is one of them. I do not know a single gamer (and I knows lots, inkl myself) who considers iOS a serious gaming platform. Everyone around me plats PC, PS, Xbox and nintendo games. And funny enough...It is rare seeing anyone I know or see in public places with a iPhone or other touchphone spending any time gaming at all.
What am I missing....
The "hardcore" gamers are a small percentage of the population. That's what you're missing. I was a hardcore gamer myself, putting in years worth of playtime on various first person shooters and spent 10 years playing mmorpgs. My platform of choice has always been windows, but I also own a ps3 and wii. But like many others, I'm no longer a hardcore gamer. I rarely play a game if any at all and the games on ios are pretty impressive, especially when sitting on the toilet or while waiting somewhere.
I think it's interesting that so many people think this is a pure money thing. Sure the money factor is a motivator for some, and they have their voice in the industry, but just remember you can have the most creative team in the world it does not mean you have the funds to make Halo. Sometimes you just have the money to make small games like the ones you see on Direct Download systems and mobile OSs.
The iOS really blew the doors open for a lot of small devs out there. There are some people out there who just want to make great games and would not be able to with out this market out there.
Angry Birds exceeded 350 Million in games sold back in September. At $4.99 a sale you do the math.
http://www.videogamesblogger.com/201...50-million.htm
With sales like that it's clear that Halo won't compete.
You are a little off there on price. The Angry Birds game was $2.99 when it started out and fell to $0.99 on the iOS app store. It is a FREE ad based game on Android which I am sure is included in those download totals.
Call of Duty Black Ops, last year sold over 7 million copies it's first weekend of release, worldwide. At $60.00 a copy I'd take that revenue any day of the week over a mobile game which took two years to reach 350 million downloads total.
For the sake of argument:
$2.99 x 350 million - 30% in 2 years = $314 million
$60.00 x 7 million in 2 days = $420 million
Of course the $420 million isn't pure profit but the $2.99 price is being very generous considering Angry Birds is now a $0.99 game and comes free through the Android marketplace.
This doesn't even include the overpriced limited edition sets of Call of Duty Black Ops or the DLC from Black Ops. Sorry but a mobile phone game might sell more over time on different platforms but the money they make is a drop in the bucket compared to console quality games and pricing.
EDIT: I should add the difference can be said that Angry Birds more than any other mobile game is a sort of juggernaut and not really the reality of mobile gaming. They are raking in the money from expanding the franchise to other areas (not just gaming). Plush dolls, game boards, movies will make that franchise. Not every mobile game sells that well or is that sticky in a consumer's eye. Console games sell in high numbers all the time for the popular franchises.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzinga...of-complaints/
Angry Birds exceeded 350 Million in games sold back in September. At $4.99 a sale you do the math.
http://www.videogamesblogger.com/201...50-million.htm
With sales like that it's clear that Halo won't compete.
WOW, way to skew the numbers. All angry bird versions are FREE on Android, and alot are FREE on the itouch. Even the ones you have to pay for are only 99 cents.
Franchise games make a crap ton of money. That is why they are still such a big deal. Modern Warfare which will be release next week is predicted to make a over a billion in revenue during the first six months (http://www.psu.com/Modern-Warfare-3-...a013489-p0.php)
They will have to sell nearly 17M copies at $60 each to make a billion, unless there is downloadable pay content being sold as well.
Do you have some support for such a silly comment? Do you really believe that they did not intend for apps to be developed for the iOS platform in the manner in which they actually developed? Did you really think that Apple woke up one morning, looked out the window, saw a big group of app developed camped on the front lawn and said, "well if we don't let them create apps, they won't go away?"
Cupidity at its finest!
Oh gee, you mean like reading Steve's biography? Here's an article that discusses it. It mentions that several executives petitioned him about calls out 2, but I've seen Forstall's name listed chiefly over the last several years whenever it's brought up. If you will recall, when the iPhone came out Steve said no to apps and that if people wanted apps they could design web apps. Eventually his viewpoint was changed and it's a good thing it was. Steve was not perfect or all-knowing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...bs-apps-iphone
Think of it this way. Let say there are 50 million Xbox's out there and maybe 50% of those play Halo. Vs 100 million iOS devices and 50% of them play Angry birds.
Halo cost $59
AB cost $.99
Which cost more to develop?
Which cost more to support?
In the end game makers want to make money. Making money is sales - cost = profit
Maybe, but many AAA games these days are considered art. While the publishers like EA may dump AAA titles any moment they like for simpler and more profitable games, the studios themselves will always keep doing AAA titles.
And we could have some on the App Store... *if* someone proved touch controls can be reasonable (with proper software implementation) OR released an accessory with AT LEAST an analog stick (virtual or not) and two shoulder buttons. Every single studio is studying the iOS closely, and have only chosen not to act because they are still not sure they can get something big and good to the iOS platform, regardless of whether the graphics themselves are lagging behind the 2007 generation of consoles (for now...)
IMHO, if Apple offered the iphone and ipod touch in a gaming centric(tactile buttons) BTO(build to order), Nintendo's game boy and the psp and vita would be destroyed market wise.
They'd never, ever do that. That's completely un-Apple
Release an accessory with absurd price, however, effectively telling the industry "Here it is you bunch of idiots, now can you please make a bunch of them so our developers can start making some great games", is totally something Apple would do....
...If they were interested.
So, Apple.... are you interested?
The "hardcore" gamers are a small percentage of the population. That's what you're missing. I was a hardcore gamer myself, putting in years worth of playtime on various first person shooters and spent 10 years playing mmorpgs.
See, that's your problem. You've only played games of the two most repetitive genres of all
Although I like shooting and all, I prefer combat when it's only part of the experience. Think Deus Ex, Uncharted...
... S K Y R I M
You're missing the fact that YOU don't get to determine what a gaming platform is or isn't.
hey! I never claimed to do that! I only said what I observe in my daily life...
You're like the car nuts who think that the only cars that count are those that have 600 HP and go 0 to 60 in under 3 seconds. By that standard, Ferrari has a 50% market share and Toyota and GM don't even exist.
not into cars...but when you mention that kind of thought pattern...I have a Mac Pro ;D