Apple and Google bring fight for exclusive games to mobile

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 43
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    hill60 wrote: »
    That's a lot of shitty, ad loaded live wallpapers complete with tracking.

    Hey, that's "progress" —in trash culture.
  • Reply 22 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    I don't know about you, but I'd swallow my pride and half my arm for a billion dollars. image

     

    I definitely would too.:smokey:

     

    I am a stubborn person, but I can definitely be bought for money, as long as the price is right.<img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 

  • Reply 23 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

    They commented on the possibility of their titles on mobile here:



    …2014-01-17…

     

    OH PLEASE, YES.

     

    What they'd be better off doing is scrapping the whole idea of a standard console, just make a 7-8" tablet themselves.


     

    Wait, why? I get that they love making their own hardware, and they certainly do it as well as Apple does theirs (and with the same impact), but honestly, they have the hardware built for them already. They’ve used ARM in their portables for years: why not upgrade to the best ARM on the market: Apple’s?

     

    They can make an Android tablet…


     

    Just what we need, more tracking.

  • Reply 24 of 43
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Less than two years ago iOS app revenues were 400% higher. Even a year ago it was at least 200% more. That's it's down to 85% shows a lot of progress. By the end of this year Android app revenues may even exceed those of Apple's App Store at the current rate of growth.
    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/112912-ios-android-apps-264635.html
    http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/17/revenue-from-apples-ios-app-store-more-than-twice-that-of-google-play
    That's what people with poor math skills said about Androids ridiculous double-digit growth in the early years. It's simply not sustainable forever and we now see Android growth has levelled off.

    Google Already had their "growth spurt" with Google Play. It occurred in 2012-2013 and has also now started to level off and show similar growth to the App Store. Google isn't going to double their sales again this year. Going from 4x to 2.3x to the current 1.85x is also a clear indicator that Googles revenue growth has also slowed down.
  • Reply 25 of 43
    Nintendo shouldn't bother with major hardware devices anymore.

    All they need to do to make a fortune in gaming is A) bring their franchise titles like Mario and Zelda to iOS and B) make their own controller that you clip your iPhone into. I'm sure Nintendo could make an awesome controller (better than the first-gen Logitech or Moga ones). Make the controller a bundle with a free download of any game they sell and watch the money pour in.
  • Reply 26 of 43
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    Wait, why? I get that they love making their own hardware, and they certainly do it as well as Apple does theirs (and with the same impact), but honestly, they have the hardware built for them already. They’ve used ARM in their portables for years: why not upgrade to the best ARM on the market: Apple’s?

    Once they go without hardware, it puts them in a vulnerable situation. It's like when people suggest Apple licenses their OS. The potential revenue is huge but it's also very risky if they in fact don't get the sales they'd hoped for. Mobile games sell for under $10 (of which they get at most $7) whereas a piece of hardware can sell for $200 and they can make $70 profit on it so they only need ~1/10th the hardware sales to make the same income and once someone has made the commitment to buy the hardware, they don't want to have it sitting doing nothing so they invest in software for it that they might not on other hardware.

    This is why they purposely take away backwards compatibility for games - they make a cut on future game sales so they don't really want people playing games they've already bought instead of buying new versions.

    It's true that the hardware is often loss-making but they get the leverage of the game sales limited to their console.
    Just what we need, more tracking.

    They could fork it like the Kindle and even isolate the Android compatibility part from the Nintendo part. The NIntendo part could even run a separate OS if they wanted. Parents with kids are all going to want to get their kids a tablet of some kind so if they can forget buying the games console and the tablet separately, they just get both in one unit.
  • Reply 27 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

     

    That's a lot of ... ad loaded live wallpapers complete with tracking.


    Actually, that is not the least bit true. This was just reported over the weekend:

     

    http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/15/google-play-still-tops-ios-app-store-downloads-and-now-narrowing-revenue-gap-too/

     

    This report mentions this: "However, Apple continues to still be “comfortably ahead” in terms of worldwide revenue, the report found, generating a whopping 85% more revenue than Google Play. The key finding in terms of revenue from the Q1 report appears, at first glance, to be more of the same – that is, Apple generates more revenue for developers, despite Google’s massive install base."

     

    So it is hardly an anti-Apple or pro-Android article. But note this:

    "However, what’s interesting is that Google Play is now narrowing that revenue gap, according to App Annie."

    And this:

    "Android app download volume is growing thanks to explosive growth in emerging markets, including Mexico, where smartphone adoption grew 75% last year, and Turkey, where I.T. spending is expected to increase by 9% this year, driven by smartphone and tablet adoption. Downloads were also strong in Brazil and Russia, now both in the top three."

    So Android can increase their revenue simply by growth and improving economies where they dominate.

     

    But that is not where all the growth in revenue is going to come from. And this:

    "But it’s established markets like the U.S. and U.K. that are helping most in narrowing the revenue gap, the report finds.

    In the U.S., for example, Google Play revenue grew approximately 55% quarter-over-quarter, taking the country past South Korea (home to Samsung and LG), and second place on the Market Index since Q1 2013. Now it’s number three, with Japan (#1) and the U.S. (#2) ahead. The change indicates that stateside Android users may be slowly warming up to the notion of paying for apps and other in-app purchases, specifically games, like category leader Clash of Clans, for instance."

     

    This is logical. The United States users that are paying a lot of money for Android phablets/premium Android phones like the Galaxy Note, Galaxy S5 and the HTC One are obviously going to be willing/able to buy apps and make in-app purchases. Like it or not, the phablets were a game-changer as it changed the profile of Android users to a more affluent clientele where before they were mostly people who could not afford IOS devices. There is still a huge lag, of course, because Apple had such a long head start, plus while Android phablets are selling, the Samsung, Google and other premium Android tablets aren't.

     

    But even with the cheaper Android tablets there is the potential for growth. Disney, for example, has just entered a licensing deal with the Android Nabi tablets. It includes their own "Disney Nabi" tablet as well as Disney's own apps that can be downloaded to any tablet. It makes sense, because even if you are going to buy a $600 I-Pad for yourself, a $175 Nabi for your kid makes a lot more sense. Nickelodeon has their own branded Nabi tablet also http://www.nabitablet.com/nabi2-disney http://www.nabitablet.com/nabi2-nickelodeon/features leaving Cartoon Network as the only one of the major kids network that releases apps solely for IOS. If this wasn't a viable revenue stream with significant future growth, Disney and Nickelodeon would not have entered it. Disney and Nickelodeon used to license with Leap Frog and VTech for this market, now they no longer have to, and Leap Frog, VTech and the other e-learning software companies will soon be forced to abandon their proprietary hardware and software for Android in order to survive (Leap Frog came out with a "Leap Pad Ultra" in a failing attempt to compete with Nabi). And another avenue with cheaper tablets: Intel is teaming with Asus to build tablets in the $150-$250 range with their Bay Trail processor. This will result in lower cost tablets that still have the processing power to run good gaming and business/productivity apps. Intel is tired of losing money with Windows 8 and is switching to Android as the focus of their mobile chip business.

     

    More still: "The U.K. also contributed to revenue growth, gaining 35% quarter-over-quarter, after growing nearly 55% from Q3 to Q4 2013, the report says." Also: "On Google Play, games contribute to nearly 90% of revenue." (It is 75% for App Store.)

     

    And the killer quote: "However it doesn’t take into account Amazon’s Appstore, which is found to be more lucrative for Android developers than Google’s own marketplace." With Fire TV, this is only going to continue. Fire TV is the #1 selling electronics item on Amazon, and they are selling a ton of gaming controllers too. Obviously people aren't buying all those $40 controllers for wallpapers. And as Fire TV is designed to work with Kindle Fire HDX in a similar fashion to AirPlay on Apple devices, this might give the Android platform its first top-selling tablet.

     

    Finally this link shows the real growth (this is Google not just Amazon): http://www.pcworld.com/article/2144801/chromecast-google-play-highlight-strong-quarter-for-google.html "Google paid out 4 times the cash to app developers in 2013 than it did in 2012."

     

    Is Google Play going to catch the App Store? Probably not. Those two sources did state that the App Store had huge growth in Asia. But the growth in Google and Amazon is making it more than worthwhile, lucrative even, to develop for Android. I know, Amazon forked their OS away from Amazon, but the two are still similar enough that developing for one will allow you to list your app on both Google Play and Amazon, as I defy anyone to name a significant app or developer that lists on one but not the other (beyond, that is, the Amazon exclusives developed and owned by Amazon, such as the games being developed for their Fire TV by the game studio that Amazon bought).

     

    And who knows what new products, markets and strategies could drive Android revenue 2-3 years from now. As mentioned earlier, a quality tablet that people actually buy and use would help still more. (and towards that end the phablets may actually be cannibalizing at least the higher end 7 inch Android tablet market). And if Google decides to better integrate Android, Chromecast and ChromeOS (which right now have separate SDKs, making the apps incompatible save for the ability to run Chrome and Chromecast apps on an Android Chrome browser) ... more revenue still. Don't laugh ... Google is selling a ton of Chromecasts (if only because they are so cheap) and ChromeOS accounted for more than 10% of computer-like devices last year (a category that includes laptops/netbooks, tablets and desktop PCs but not smartphones). This is not affecting Apple's bottom line any ... it is mostly coming at the expense of Microsoft as well as smaller niche players like Roku. But one doesn't have to take sales away from Apple in order to make money and plenty of it, and that is what Android is increasingly doing.

     

    Bottom line: the claim that Android isn't making money is 2-3 years old, before the phablet game-changer came along to lure wealthier consumers to the OS, and also before manufacturers like Nabi started to identify niche markets like educational tablets. It really should be abandoned in favor of something that is actually true.

  • Reply 28 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post



    Nintendo shouldn't bother with major hardware devices anymore.



    All they need to do to make a fortune in gaming is A) bring their franchise titles like Mario and Zelda to iOS and B) make their own controller that you clip your iPhone into. I'm sure Nintendo could make an awesome controller (better than the first-gen Logitech or Moga ones). Make the controller a bundle with a free download of any game they sell and watch the money pour in.



    First off, Sega was the only company that abandoned making consoles in favor of only making software and survived. The other game console manufacturers that tried failed and wound up being acquired or going out of business. So the idea that Nintendo could simply become a gaming software company and be fine is not based on reality, especially considering Sega's survival is "just barely", not the sort of survival that Nintendo is interested in and would simply fold rather than suffer the humiliation of barely existing and subject to the whims of hardware manufacturers like Sega. That is another thing: Nintendo's games are great - Mario is Mario and Zelda is Zelda - because the games are made to run on Nintendo hardware. Port the games to another platform and the quality/gameplay would not be as good. Making a high quality console game is totally different from making a mobile app. Nintendo would have to learn Apple's hardware and software inside out, and both are subject to change whenever Apple decides to.

     

    Finally, if you think that Nintendo would go the software only route and only create games for Apple you are nuts. First, they would make games for Playstation and XBox, the still very viable and lucrative console platforms. Second, making games for XBox pretty much means making games for Windows 8 PC, phones and tablets. Third, there is no way that Nintendo is going to refuse to develop games for Android, which is only the dominant mobile OS in Asia by far. "But Android users don't buy anything!" Put Nintendo games on Android and they would, and that would monetize that vast market. Also, Nintendo would not want to write off the Google Play and Amazon purchasers and the revenue that they do represent, let alone the growth that putting their games out would result in. Like "Legend Of Zelda" wouldn't be the #1 download on Fire TV for months!

  • Reply 29 of 43
    cash907cash907 Posts: 893member
    Oh good: screwing over the consumer just to make themselves feel more important, because that's been just awesome for console gamers. Wanna play the new " Uncharted?" Oh I'm sorry, that's only on play station. Yeah. We do this for you, the gamers.
  • Reply 30 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

    Once they go without hardware, it puts them in a vulnerable situation. It's like when people suggest Apple licenses their OS.

     

    Yep. That’s sure a valid concern.

     

    This is why they purposely take away backwards compatibility for games…


     

    But Nintendo has moved TO backward compatibility, not away from it. All but the newest Wii (and the Wii Mini or whatever they called that idiotic idea) had GameCube compatibility (using the COOLEST slot load ODD ever), the GBA (except for the GBA Micro, which proves that a larger iPhone is idiotic) had GameBoy/Color compatibility, the Nintendo DS (except for the DSi) have GBA compatibility, and the 3DS and 2DS (is… is Nintendo getting stupid?) have DS/i compatibility. 

     

    Contrast with the NES, SNES, N64, and GameCube… 

     

    It's true that the hardware is often loss-making but they get the leverage of the game sales limited to their console.


     

    Gets more than bothersome when there are one or two exclusives you think might be fun but you’d have to buy a $400 console to play them. At least Nintendo’s hardware prices (and vast library of good properties) make their purchases smarter.

  • Reply 31 of 43
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    cash907 wrote: »
    Oh good: screwing over the consumer just to make themselves feel more important, because that's been just awesome for console gamers. Wanna play the new " Uncharted?" Oh I'm sorry, that's only on play station. Yeah. We do this for you, the gamers.

    A game like Uncharted is developed by Sony themselves using in house developers. You'll probably never see a iOS version of a game like that.
  • Reply 32 of 43
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post



    A game like Uncharted is developed by Sony themselves using in house developers. You'll probably never see a iOS version of a game like that.

     

    While I dont' agree with his explanation, I can understand his frustration.  It is a shame that Xbox owners can't play Uncharted or The Last of Us.  Naughty Dog has hit a lot of home runs lately and Xbox owners really are missing out.  As far as ending up on iOS, I'm not sure the controls for either would translate to mobile very well.  Porting The Last of Us to mobile would take what is one of the greatest games to ever be made and likely make it a frustrating and miserable experience.

  • Reply 33 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

    It is a shame that Xbox owners can't play Uncharted or The Last of Us.


     

    Forget that. Real computer owners! Where graphics don’t have to be mercilessly stripped to meet pathetic hardware quotas.

     

    If you made a computer game that could only be played at 720p today, you’d be laughed at and spat upon. But it’s par for the course, even for the newest consoles.

     

    Guess I’ll just wait for the The Last Of Us film.

  • Reply 34 of 43
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DroidFTW View Post

     

    As far as ending up on iOS, I'm not sure the controls for either would translate to mobile very well.  


     

    I haven't played the particular games that are being talked about here, but I do know that sometimes certain console or pc games can be even better on an iPad, precisely because of the touch screen controls.

     

    Of course, that doesn't apply to all games. It depends.

  • Reply 35 of 43
    As a lover of games it would be smarter of Nintendo to release blockbuster games to PC, Xbox 1, and ps4. Mobile is not ready for blockbuster gmes yet. When you have games closing in at 50 GB and millions of dollars going into development it's hard to give it away for 4.99. Most peopple don't see it worth pay 60$ games and these studios being forced to pay 30% to apple is absurb.
  • Reply 36 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

    its hard to give it away for 4.99.

     

    So sell it for $19.99 and make money. Simple.

     

    …these studios being forced to pay 30% to apple is absorb.


     

    They won’t think that way when they’re bankrupted by Apple.

  • Reply 37 of 43
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post



    As a lover of games it would be smarter of Nintendo to release blockbuster games to PC, Xbox 1, and ps4. Mobile is not ready for blockbuster gmes yet. When you have games closing in at 50 GB and millions of dollars going into development it's hard to give it away for 4.99. Most peopple don't see it worth pay 60$ games and these studios being forced to pay 30% to apple is absurb.

     

    Games like XCOM: Enemy Unknown have addressed the size and cost problem by offering a more limited, but still enjoyable version of the game for mobile.  They achieved this by removing levels and reducing graphics for the iOS version.  By doing so they were able to get the filesize down to 1.75 GB with a cost of $19.99.  This approach won't work for all games, but it can certainly work for some.

  • Reply 38 of 43
    Forget that. Real computer owners! Where graphics don’t have to be mercilessly stripped to meet pathetic hardware quotas.

    If you made a computer game that could only be played at 720p today, you’d be laughed at and spat upon. But it’s par for the course, even for the newest consoles.

    Guess I’ll just wait for the The Last Of Us film.
    You'll still be missing something. Graphics don't really matter in games like The Last of Us, or Heavy Rain, where the plot is everything. You won't even notice those 720p, the only thing you'd want to know is what the hell happened to Ethan Mars' son.
    droidftw wrote: »
    While I dont' agree with his explanation, I can understand his frustration.  It is a shame that Xbox owners can't play Uncharted or The Last of Us.  Naughty Dog has hit a lot of home runs lately and Xbox owners really are missing out.
    "Lately"? Ever since Crash Bandicoot, if I may ;-) Jak and Daxter 1-2-3 have also been a huge hit for PS2. I'm deeply sorry for Xbox owners, but really, if they are unhappy after years of Halo and Gears of War, they can always "change side" ;-)
  • Reply 39 of 43
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by LilSmirk View Post

    You'll still be missing something. Graphics don't really matter in games like The Last of Us, or Heavy Rain, where the plot is everything. 

     

    Yes, I’ve noticed that. Plot has become everything such that it detracts from the fact that IT’S A GAME, NOT A FILM. I abhor all these shoddy “games” these days that are nothing more than interactive movies. Even worse, the ones that give you “choice” that affects the outcome, plot, or events in any way.

     

    You won't even notice those 720p, the only thing you'd want to know is what the hell happened to Ethan Mars' son.


     

    Hmm… What’s the last game that got me to care… There is one, I just can’t remember. The nice thing about my inability to retain memories is that I can have a small library of entertainment and just… rewatch or replay them every year. Virtually a new experience every time.

  • Reply 40 of 43
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

    Yes, I’ve noticed that. Plot has become everything such that it detracts from the fact that IT’S A GAME, NOT A FILM. I abhor all these shoddy “games” these days that are nothing more than interactive movies.


    I can agree with this.

    Quote:

     Even worse, the ones that give you “choice” that affects the outcome, plot, or events in any way.




    I cannot Agree with this. Possibly one of the few reasons I touch games like Fallout 1/2/New Vegas, Planescape Torment, Knights of the Old Republic 2, and Dragon Age Origins is the depth into which they can give player control of their progression.

     

    These games listed in particular, because unlike other RPG's where the endings are fairly black and white(ergo Good vs Evil blah), these listed happen to literally emphasize every decision you ever make and the consequences. You can't get any more RPG than that. What may have sounded like a great idea on Paper turned out to be a horrible decision for the player? That's role playing.

     

    Simple "Oh you saved the day" or "You doomed everything" plots however quickly kill my interest in an RPG if not done correctly.  In regular games though you can forget it. Almost every Non-RPG fails these points. So in that point I can agree, with a few exceptions(Ergo Walking Dead).

     

    Quote:


    Hmm… What’s the last game that got me to care… There is one, I just can’t remember. The nice thing about my inability to retain memories is that I can have a small library of entertainment and just… rewatch or replay them every year. Virtually a new experience every time. 


    If you can remember the setting or perhaps a general plot or character I might be able to find it if you wish.

Sign In or Register to comment.