That's why DS/PSP sales got clobbered by iOS. People who own both report that they use their iOS devices for gaming more! It's a fact, not the authors opinion or hope.
Bullshit! I own both and I prefer to buy and play 80$ true games and not 1$ garbage games! There is no such report! Show the facts if you have them! I never heard of a single gamer who plays Star Wars The Old Republic and now says: "Doh, I'm gone start playing Angry Birds Star Wars because it's cheaper and greater!"
I own both and I prefer to buy and play 80$ true games and not 1$ garbage games!
Well, that's ONE data point, at least.
There is no such report!
Something about chickens and counting comes to mind.
I never heard of a single gamer who plays Star Wars The Old Republic and now says: "Doh, I'm gone start playing Angry Birds Star Wars because it's cheaper and greater!"
Good thing he isn't claiming that in any respect, then.
Also, have you played anything by Bioware? Cookie-cutter if I've ever seen it.
The first time this was pointed out, the same group of people made the same arrogant comments about how smartphones could never compete with dedicated portable gaming devices. And yet you were all wrong.
Don't you anonymous critics get tired of being wrong most all of the time?
It depends on what you mean by compete. As far as game play it doesn't but the versatility of a iPod touch makes it a more attractive purchase.
Console gaming is cheaper, and the games I find are more in depth and can be enjoyed with friends together on one screen.
Think about it: A 60GB PS3 (when released in 2006) was $600. Add 4 new games a year ($50 each = $200) which brings you to $2000 roughly for 7 years (depending on your game buying habits as some like to buy used instead, which is cheaper).
Buying an iPad (64GB model) is $700 plus say 1 new game a week ($75 per year - some games are more than $0.99). Now, your iPad doesn't last for 7 years (well, it does, but they slow down over time) so you have to upgrade every 3 years. So, $700 x 2.333 = $1633 (2.33 iPads) + $525 (games) = $2158.
So iPads are slightly more expensive over 7 years.
Notably missing from Sony's event was significant recognition of the "Post PC" era that Apple has focused its attention on, beginning with the iPad's unveiling by Steve Jobs three years ago in early 2010.
...
Sony's brief mention of integration with mobile devices is notable given that both Sony and Nintendo have seen their mobile gaming initiatives decimated by casual gaming on smartphones, iPad and iPod touch, led by Apple's iOS App Store gaming initiatives.
Sony has given up. They've missed the post-PC boat, they're stuck on Legacy Island, and their only hope is to milk the same old console gaming market for all it's worth. They'll try to maximize their slice of a shrinking pie. Good luck with that. Ganbatte kudasai.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The PS4 and upcoming new Xbox will both deliver more graphics horsepower than today's iPad, but over the course of their lifespans, Apple's rapid, exponential advancement in iPad processing and graphics upgrades will continue as these new consoles remain stuck with the capabilities they arrived with in 2013.
Legacy consoles: dinosaurs freezing to death, unable to evolve rapidly enough to survive in the post-PC world.
Apple TV + iOS: smaller faster warm-blooded mammals, ready to disrupt and dominate the post-PC gaming world.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In a market where price has historically been more important to consumers than hardware specs and graphics quality, Apple TV and AirPlay gaming via wirelessly connected iPhones and iPads offer a strong challenge to the status quo, even before considering the much more attractive pricing of iOS games over the $50 to $80 titles of conventional game consoles.
Legacy consoles and games: legacy technology at high legacy prices.
Apple TV + iOS and apps: modern technology at low modern prices.
Sony appears to be justifying the high price of its legacy console by throwing in non-gaming features. Partly as a blind, shotgun approach to battling Apple in the living room. Blind because Sony has no idea what Apple is planning to do. Shotgun in that by adding a bunch of features to the old PS, they just might accidentally hit on features Apple may or may not introduce in some future version of Apple TV.
But really, I think the main reason why Sony is expanding the PS's features is because gaming simply isn't enough any more. Selling into the "hardcore gamer" market isn't sustainable. Hardcore gamers are a dying breed. Casual gamers don't want a uni-tasking games-only console in the living room any more. And Sony thinks that throwing PC-like features into the PS will save it.
We'll see. But in the meantime, does anybody remember Google TV? Cramming PC/internet complexity into TV-viewing simplicity just didn't work. Monopolizing the biggest screen in the household for single-user PC/internet tasks just didn't work. The "lean forward" PC/internet paradigm clashed with the "lean back" TV consumption paradigm. And now Sony is falling into that same trap. Ganbatte kudasai.
Gaming consoles were never "PCs", and if anything are "Pre-PC". They are not intended to run general-purpose software, be used in a workstation environment, or have wildly flexible hardware configurations. Rather, they are intended to run entertainment software, live with the TV, and have homogeneous hardware.
This last point is perhaps the most critical. Every PlayStation 3 is essentially identical. While Sony has made revisions, they have mostly been a repackaging to reduce costs, with no impact to interfaces, compatibility, or performance. New accessories have come out, but they are available to all users, regardless of the version. A PlayStation 3 purchased years ago on lauch day will work just as well as one purchased today. Finally, a PlayStation 3 is not an update to the PlayStation 2, nor will the PlayStation 4 be a "better" PlayStation 3. The are successors in terms of the branding and the user experience, but they are discreet products.
(This has always been true of consoles. Sure, Nintendo has evolved their architecture and kept backward compatibility. You could argue that a Wii U is a "better" Wii, however, it is intended to play a whole new set of games that are impossible to play on the old Wii, and will not really affect the experience of playing an older game on the new hardware. New box, new games. OK, the OUYA project is planning to have annual upgrades, but this has not yet happened...)
With PC gaming, the world is very different. The hardware is extermely diverse; rarely are two players using identical machines. The upgrade cycle is driven by improving the quality of the existing software, not gaining access to new software. Highly competitive gamers will upgrade their hardware to gain an advantage.
Frankly, I think a smartphone is much more PC-like than a console. New phones are "better" versions of the old phones. new phones will run all the old apps, and new apps should run on somewhat older phones. The CPUs, GPUs, screen resolutions, etc. have all changed in ways that are intended to give the user an improved experience even with the old apps. In the Android and Windows Phone worlds, the hardware is made by many different manufacturers and is wildly diverse, but still runs pretty much the same software.
True, even sony said they have a "PC-like" architecture, centered around an x86 processor, lots of RAM, a beefy GPU, and a hard drive. This does not make it a PC. These are all very appropriate choices for a console application: pixel-pushing horsepower and storage, and in drawing developers already familiar with designing for PCs or wanting to produce cross-platform.
Console gaming is cheaper, and the games I find are more in depth and can be enjoyed with friends together on one screen.
Think about it: A 60GB PS3 (when released in 2006) was $600. Add 4 new games a year ($50 each = $200) which brings you to $2000 roughly for 7 years (depending on your game buying habits as some like to buy used instead, which is cheaper).
Buying an iPad (64GB model) is $700 plus say 1 new game a week ($75 per year - some games are more than $0.99). Now, your iPad doesn't last for 7 years (well, it does, but they slow down over time) so you have to upgrade every 3 years. So, $700 x 2.333 = $1633 (2.33 iPads) + $525 (games) = $2158.
So iPads are slightly more expensive over 7 years.
Thank you! I really needed to laugh like that although I think I now have a rib fracture.
It's funny how console gamers have been predicting the death of PC gaming for over 15 years now.
Now the PS4 compares itself to a PC.
Yeah.
They're a resilient bunch. Can't see how they lived playing the likes of DOOM, Duke Nukem, and Half Life. Boy did those games suck. I don't think a single game that was originally released for PC became a big hit on consoles. I never understood why they'd spend so much money upgrading their video cards to play on a small screen.
I'm somewhat baffled by the hostile response of most commenters. My feeling was the article was completely non-controversial and suffered from restating the obvious!
The basic argument is that coupling a mobile device (which I already own) with a connection to a TV provides a reasonable competitor to dedicated consoles for at least a sizable portion of the console market. Is this really something people are going to disagree with? The advantages are huge and the disadvantages are relatively easy to solve.
The advantages:
Much faster pace of technology development. Mobile is advancing at a tearing pace so hard to argue against this one.
Leverages existing development resources. There are a lot more mobile developers than console developers. Even redesigning my input control strategy fro airplay TV gaming for a mobile game is going to be easier than rewriting it for a console. And the programming model and tools are familiar. This one is huge.
Lots of good sensors. The sensors in phones are fantastic and well beyond what goes into dedicated controllers (at least ones most people own)
Low cost. I already own the most expensive piece so the incremental cost is small.
Disadvantages:
Controllers. Phones have bluetooth. Does anyone really think Apple (and Google) don't have controller apis under development that will support controllers like that steering wheel one? Adding controllers interfaced to a phone is not that hard and is already happening.
Latency / networking. It may be a problem today (and may not be for many games) but this is easily solved by a mix of optimization and newer network technologies. Yes, I may have to replace some network hardware but again, it's relatively cheap.
Higher performance hardware. This one is real in that some games want all the hardware and more that you can through at them.
Really the only disadvantage that will slow the death of consoles is the last one, sometimes you just want all the power you can get. However, given the pace of mobile development, at some point the mobile computer I'm carrying will be "powerful enough". It already is for some types of games and the area where phones are "enough" grows constantly. Are phones coupled to apple TV like devices a replacement for consoles? For some people they are not, for many people they are.
The previous generation of consoles was a 250 million unit market. I think it's pretty evident that the next generation will not be that large. Mobile won't replace consoles directly but they will take away a lot of the more casual gamers who bought consoles last time around. They may suck off enough of the market to make it economically unviable for 3 console makers in the market. That's the mobile threat to consoles. Not that they are a direct replacement but that they will remove enough of the user base to the point it's too small a market to be interesting to the makers.
The previous generation of consoles was a 250 million unit market. I think it's pretty evident that the next generation will not be that large. Mobile won't replace consoles directly but they will take away a lot of the more casual gamers who bought consoles last time around. They may suck off enough of the market to make it economically unviable for 3 console makers in the market. That's the mobile threat to consoles. Not that they are a direct replacement but that they will remove enough of the user base to the point it's too small a market to be interesting to the makers.
I think that as long as there are teenage boys consoles well sell well.
Sony has post PC strategy it's sony Xperia Z with android. Android had won market share war of post pc era. Steve jobs has left. Apple,s innovative and market disrupting days are over. They can't do anything new. Iphone5 and iPad mini were just minor revisions of earlier products. Apple maps was massive flop.
As far Apple TV beating consoles, not gonna happen. Only Steve jobs could have pulled that kind of thing and he's gone Also note that Mac App Store was not able to beat PC gaming market. 99 cents game on Mac App Store couldn't able to lure PC gamers. Neither it was able to lure AAA developers. So I don't think half quid games of Apple TV could make any dent to console gaming.
There's something fundamentally wrong with this article, even if by the end of their lives the graphics of the PS4 and 720 could be matched by iPads (which they couldn't since the current iPad isn't anywhere near matching the PS3 from 2006) they still wouldn't be as good to play on because of their input. While multitouch is great for casual games it will never be as good as a dedicated physical controller for playing big games.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
That's why DS/PSP sales got clobbered by iOS. People who own both report that they use their iOS devices for gaming more! It's a fact, not the authors opinion or hope.
Bullshit! I own both and I prefer to buy and play 80$ true games and not 1$ garbage games! There is no such report! Show the facts if you have them! I never heard of a single gamer who plays Star Wars The Old Republic and now says: "Doh, I'm gone start playing Angry Birds Star Wars because it's cheaper and greater!"
Originally Posted by NelsonX
I own both and I prefer to buy and play 80$ true games and not 1$ garbage games!
Well, that's ONE data point, at least.
There is no such report!
Something about chickens and counting comes to mind.
I never heard of a single gamer who plays Star Wars The Old Republic and now says: "Doh, I'm gone start playing Angry Birds Star Wars because it's cheaper and greater!"
Good thing he isn't claiming that in any respect, then.
Also, have you played anything by Bioware? Cookie-cutter if I've ever seen it.
It depends on what you mean by compete. As far as game play it doesn't but the versatility of a iPod touch makes it a more attractive purchase.
Console gaming is cheaper, and the games I find are more in depth and can be enjoyed with friends together on one screen.
Think about it: A 60GB PS3 (when released in 2006) was $600. Add 4 new games a year ($50 each = $200) which brings you to $2000 roughly for 7 years (depending on your game buying habits as some like to buy used instead, which is cheaper).
Buying an iPad (64GB model) is $700 plus say 1 new game a week ($75 per year - some games are more than $0.99). Now, your iPad doesn't last for 7 years (well, it does, but they slow down over time) so you have to upgrade every 3 years. So, $700 x 2.333 = $1633 (2.33 iPads) + $525 (games) = $2158.
So iPads are slightly more expensive over 7 years.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Notably missing from Sony's event was significant recognition of the "Post PC" era that Apple has focused its attention on, beginning with the iPad's unveiling by Steve Jobs three years ago in early 2010.
...
Sony's brief mention of integration with mobile devices is notable given that both Sony and Nintendo have seen their mobile gaming initiatives decimated by casual gaming on smartphones, iPad and iPod touch, led by Apple's iOS App Store gaming initiatives.
Sony has given up. They've missed the post-PC boat, they're stuck on Legacy Island, and their only hope is to milk the same old console gaming market for all it's worth. They'll try to maximize their slice of a shrinking pie. Good luck with that. Ganbatte kudasai.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The PS4 and upcoming new Xbox will both deliver more graphics horsepower than today's iPad, but over the course of their lifespans, Apple's rapid, exponential advancement in iPad processing and graphics upgrades will continue as these new consoles remain stuck with the capabilities they arrived with in 2013.
Legacy consoles: dinosaurs freezing to death, unable to evolve rapidly enough to survive in the post-PC world.
Apple TV + iOS: smaller faster warm-blooded mammals, ready to disrupt and dominate the post-PC gaming world.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
In a market where price has historically been more important to consumers than hardware specs and graphics quality, Apple TV and AirPlay gaming via wirelessly connected iPhones and iPads offer a strong challenge to the status quo, even before considering the much more attractive pricing of iOS games over the $50 to $80 titles of conventional game consoles.
Legacy consoles and games: legacy technology at high legacy prices.
Apple TV + iOS and apps: modern technology at low modern prices.
Sony appears to be justifying the high price of its legacy console by throwing in non-gaming features. Partly as a blind, shotgun approach to battling Apple in the living room. Blind because Sony has no idea what Apple is planning to do. Shotgun in that by adding a bunch of features to the old PS, they just might accidentally hit on features Apple may or may not introduce in some future version of Apple TV.
But really, I think the main reason why Sony is expanding the PS's features is because gaming simply isn't enough any more. Selling into the "hardcore gamer" market isn't sustainable. Hardcore gamers are a dying breed. Casual gamers don't want a uni-tasking games-only console in the living room any more. And Sony thinks that throwing PC-like features into the PS will save it.
We'll see. But in the meantime, does anybody remember Google TV? Cramming PC/internet complexity into TV-viewing simplicity just didn't work. Monopolizing the biggest screen in the household for single-user PC/internet tasks just didn't work. The "lean forward" PC/internet paradigm clashed with the "lean back" TV consumption paradigm. And now Sony is falling into that same trap. Ganbatte kudasai.
Gaming consoles were never "PCs", and if anything are "Pre-PC". They are not intended to run general-purpose software, be used in a workstation environment, or have wildly flexible hardware configurations. Rather, they are intended to run entertainment software, live with the TV, and have homogeneous hardware.
This last point is perhaps the most critical. Every PlayStation 3 is essentially identical. While Sony has made revisions, they have mostly been a repackaging to reduce costs, with no impact to interfaces, compatibility, or performance. New accessories have come out, but they are available to all users, regardless of the version. A PlayStation 3 purchased years ago on lauch day will work just as well as one purchased today. Finally, a PlayStation 3 is not an update to the PlayStation 2, nor will the PlayStation 4 be a "better" PlayStation 3. The are successors in terms of the branding and the user experience, but they are discreet products.
(This has always been true of consoles. Sure, Nintendo has evolved their architecture and kept backward compatibility. You could argue that a Wii U is a "better" Wii, however, it is intended to play a whole new set of games that are impossible to play on the old Wii, and will not really affect the experience of playing an older game on the new hardware. New box, new games. OK, the OUYA project is planning to have annual upgrades, but this has not yet happened...)
With PC gaming, the world is very different. The hardware is extermely diverse; rarely are two players using identical machines. The upgrade cycle is driven by improving the quality of the existing software, not gaining access to new software. Highly competitive gamers will upgrade their hardware to gain an advantage.
Frankly, I think a smartphone is much more PC-like than a console. New phones are "better" versions of the old phones. new phones will run all the old apps, and new apps should run on somewhat older phones. The CPUs, GPUs, screen resolutions, etc. have all changed in ways that are intended to give the user an improved experience even with the old apps. In the Android and Windows Phone worlds, the hardware is made by many different manufacturers and is wildly diverse, but still runs pretty much the same software.
True, even sony said they have a "PC-like" architecture, centered around an x86 processor, lots of RAM, a beefy GPU, and a hard drive. This does not make it a PC. These are all very appropriate choices for a console application: pixel-pushing horsepower and storage, and in drawing developers already familiar with designing for PCs or wanting to produce cross-platform.
Thank you! I really needed to laugh like that although I think I now have a rib fracture.
Now the PS4 compares itself to a PC.
Yeah.
They're a resilient bunch. Can't see how they lived playing the likes of DOOM, Duke Nukem, and Half Life. Boy did those games suck. I don't think a single game that was originally released for PC became a big hit on consoles. I never understood why they'd spend so much money upgrading their video cards to play on a small screen.
I'm somewhat baffled by the hostile response of most commenters. My feeling was the article was completely non-controversial and suffered from restating the obvious!
The basic argument is that coupling a mobile device (which I already own) with a connection to a TV provides a reasonable competitor to dedicated consoles for at least a sizable portion of the console market. Is this really something people are going to disagree with? The advantages are huge and the disadvantages are relatively easy to solve.
The advantages:
Much faster pace of technology development. Mobile is advancing at a tearing pace so hard to argue against this one.
Leverages existing development resources. There are a lot more mobile developers than console developers. Even redesigning my input control strategy fro airplay TV gaming for a mobile game is going to be easier than rewriting it for a console. And the programming model and tools are familiar. This one is huge.
Lots of good sensors. The sensors in phones are fantastic and well beyond what goes into dedicated controllers (at least ones most people own)
Low cost. I already own the most expensive piece so the incremental cost is small.
Disadvantages:
Controllers. Phones have bluetooth. Does anyone really think Apple (and Google) don't have controller apis under development that will support controllers like that steering wheel one? Adding controllers interfaced to a phone is not that hard and is already happening.
Latency / networking. It may be a problem today (and may not be for many games) but this is easily solved by a mix of optimization and newer network technologies. Yes, I may have to replace some network hardware but again, it's relatively cheap.
Higher performance hardware. This one is real in that some games want all the hardware and more that you can through at them.
Really the only disadvantage that will slow the death of consoles is the last one, sometimes you just want all the power you can get. However, given the pace of mobile development, at some point the mobile computer I'm carrying will be "powerful enough". It already is for some types of games and the area where phones are "enough" grows constantly. Are phones coupled to apple TV like devices a replacement for consoles? For some people they are not, for many people they are.
The previous generation of consoles was a 250 million unit market. I think it's pretty evident that the next generation will not be that large. Mobile won't replace consoles directly but they will take away a lot of the more casual gamers who bought consoles last time around. They may suck off enough of the market to make it economically unviable for 3 console makers in the market. That's the mobile threat to consoles. Not that they are a direct replacement but that they will remove enough of the user base to the point it's too small a market to be interesting to the makers.
I think that as long as there are teenage boys consoles well sell well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Also, have you played anything by Bioware? Cookie-cutter if I've ever seen it.
Have you? Mass Effect is a remarkable series of games. I wish Hollywood could write half as well as Bioware does.
Steve jobs has left. Apple,s innovative and market disrupting days are over.
They can't do anything new. Iphone5 and iPad mini were just minor revisions of earlier products.
Apple maps was massive flop.
As far Apple TV beating consoles, not gonna happen. Only Steve jobs could have pulled that kind of thing and he's gone
Also note that Mac App Store was not able to beat PC gaming market. 99 cents game on Mac App Store couldn't able to lure PC gamers.
Neither it was able to lure AAA developers. So I don't think half quid games of Apple TV could make any dent to console gaming.