Square Enix tells us what to expect from now on.

[Enkidu]

No, this is incorrect. As Correction stated:

EA has issues but they still have revenue of around $4 billion per year. ActivisionBlizzard is printing money on the backs of AAA games. Zenimax isn't publicly traded, but if I had to guess I'd say they're rolling in diamonds. Take-two hit projections on the backs of AAA games... Whether you like it or not, companies are built around their AAA games and that's still the future of the gaming industry.

I'm not claiming there isn't a market for mobile games anyways. It's obviously a cost effective game development platform and it gives the 3rd string developers in big companies something to work on in a relatively low-risk environment. It also allows for small groups of developers or even solo developers with good ideas to get into the market. Smart phones are really shitty gaming devices though. They're really relegated to simple point and click type games and honestly I can't imagine many "real" gamers would ever find them a good alternative to handhelds...

This reminds me of the whole "the Wii is the future of gaming" bullshit from 5 years ago.

[Kohan]

EA has issues but they still have revenue of around $4 billion per year. ActivisionBlizzard is printing money on the backs of AAA games. Zenimax isn't publicly traded, but if I had to guess I'd say they're rolling in diamonds. Take-two hit projections on the backs of AAA games... Whether you like it or not, companies are built around their AAA games and that's still the future of the gaming industry.

What you're saying doesn't contradict what Correction said. In fact, I really don't understand whether that is what you were trying to do or not. You originally said:

There are plenty of companies thriving in the AAA market and this will continue for the foreseeable future.

Which he countered by essentially saying "no, there aren't," and you replied by talking about some of the few that do exist. Did you mean to bolster his point to take away from the one you were originally presenting? As he's still right, and what you've said now isn't wrong, but what you said originally is still incorrect. AAA console development is not in fact feasible for a large amount of development houses, and even the major publishers shutter a lot of their developers due to the increasing costs and the higher risk of failure involved. Just look at the recent EA thread in this very forum for more evidence of that, and if you go a little further, you'll find more tales like that.

I'm not claiming there isn't a market for mobile games anyways. It's obviously a cost effective game development platform and it gives the 3rd string developers in big companies something to work on in a relatively low-risk environment. It also allows for small groups of developers or even solo developers with good ideas to get into the market. Smart phones are really shitty gaming devices though. They're really relegated to simple point and click type games and honestly I can't imagine many "real" gamers would ever find them a good alternative to handhelds...

This reminds me of the whole "the Wii is the future of gaming" bullshit from 5 years ago.

If you think that was bullshit, you should probably look back at how much money Nintendo made (take-home profits), and how much money their competitors didn't. You do know that Sony is essentially in the shitter now, and that they've about completely lost respect in their home country, don't you? It doesn't matter if everyone else didn't start making Wii Remotes and waggle games. The industry had already been moving toward more casual and social gaming experiences, and Nintendo capitalized upon that.

In fact, by your referencing that, you're basically pointing to a successful endeavor that's a part of casual/social gaming's rise as a whole. That doesn't help what you're trying to say at all; in fact, it serves as a strong counter. Every major development house that isn't already on the smart device gravy train wants to be there, too. For reference, see Square Enix's own statements, and the Capcom article from Bloomberg quoted above, or just about anything done by anyone else (e.g., SEGA extending their whoring of Sonic the Hedgehog to the "Sonic Jump" game).

This isn't "the future," this is "the way it's been for years," and the way it's continuing to develop. I'm not saying this as if I want to aggravate anyone, as why would I? Some of my earliest and most delightful memories involve Atari, Apple, ColecoVision, and so on; that doesn't mean I'm going to stubbornly pretend that reality isn't what it is.

I completely sympathize with anyone who calls themselves a hardcore gamer. I consider myself the same. However, and perhaps more deeply than the average consumer, I understand that I am in the minority—the unprofitable minority when compared to the casual smart device userbase (even though I also use them myself). Reality is harsh sometimes.

[Lonely]

Just looking at that RE vid I have no idea how people play games on something like that.

Especially for more than 5 minutes at a time. Looking at the pad control on that then looking at my smart phone I just don't see how that would in any way work fluidly. I'll agree, puzzle and stuff like that are fine. Anything that can dumb down to that point and not suffer for it really. Shit like RE? That's just crayola.

To be fair resident evil 4 on iphone was released 4 years ago and designed for the iPhone 3GS, smartphones have come a LOOONG way the past few years and still continue to significantly improve every year. RE4 was also released by capcom who go out of their way to half ass all of there mobile releases, none of their titles support widescreen today and out of their 20 titles only 6 support native resolution for the iPhone 4.


Here's a off screen video actually displaying good controls for a third person shooter on touchscreen.

There are MANY types of genres that can easily transition on mobile, the best example being menu based RPGs like final fantasy and the diablo like games but shooters can work too. There are a few type a games that just won't work though. Smartphones and tablets go belong puzzles and angry bird ya know, not every single person will use their device to play games but there is a dedicated market of more open minded core gamers and as the year go on they will only continue to expand.

[Icarian]

The only game I genuinely enjoyed on my phone is World of Goo, not that I've tried many games though.

I simply cannot play games where I have to slide my finger across the corner of the screen to move/do actions, there has to be a physical button or I keep sliding my finger off the onscreen buttons, it's just not enjoyable.

[Elcura]

This depends upon the type of game. Old-school RPGs, like Kemco's, are exactly like their console counterparts. (I own a few of them.) Also, "simplified controls" isn't necessarily a negative, as streamlining a title can work in its favor. As for the gameplay itself, there are plenty of titles that are already the same. Resident Evil knock-offs that play just like Resident Evil, for example.

Or, you know, Resident Evil itself.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/resi...322523436?mt=8

Naturally it depends on the game and genre, stuff like classic RPGs, SRPGs, RTS and on-rails games can function similarly because the gameplay was always simple and not really about control. Platformers, action games, FPS and adventure has to be simplified a lot to even be remotely playable or accessible to the general public (which is the whole point of mobile gaming, pretty much like the Wii). Those genres can mix with the simple ones to create interesting games, but you probably won't see any of that done well.

That example you gave isn't great as mentioned, but I do agree that developers will get better at these types of concepts eventually. However, no matter how good they get a large portion of the gameplay is going to have to give in order for it to be playable. Whether this means more automated controls/sequences or less functionality remains to be seen, but conceptually you can't have the same type of games on mobile that you can on platform.

Without equal control the standard of gameplay will never reach that of consoles and without a standardized control layout games are going to be hell to develop for (but touch screen/emu controls seem to be the standard, which currently is a shitty standard).

[Elcura]

Here's a off screen video actually displaying good controls for a third person shooter on touchscreen.

There are MANY types of genres that can easily transition on mobile, the best example being menu based RPGs like final fantasy and the diablo like games but shooters can work too. There are a few type a games that just won't work though. Smartphones and tablets go belong puzzles and angry bird ya know, not every single person will use their device to play games but there is a dedicated market of more open minded core gamers and as the year go on they will only continue to expand.

That also, still, looks terrible to play. You can see the person aims like he's made out of glue, his hands are constantly in the way, shooting mechanic is clumsy (actually the whole touch screen thing is suspect), the enemy reaction mechanics are dull and plain, the enemies themselves are pathetically weak compared to their console counterparts (then there's one that takes like 2 headstomps, lol), there's no ambience or tension due to the crappy sound, graphics and lighting (you know, graphics are actually important for a horror-type game). It's like a Dead Space version of an on-the-rails shooter, the screen is so small and the large enemies take up so much space you basically don't even need to aim and the smaller ones die like flies. He can't react properly or quickly to surprise so it makes all ambushes look stupid. I could go on, but I suspect gameplay variation is low and generally doesn't evolve much past this.

In fact, the only thing I liked about that video was at 6:25 when the guy takes the piss outta all the shit Isaac does. It does look better than RE4, which isn't saying much.

[Brill Weave]

That also, still, looks terrible to play. You can see the person aims like he's made out of glue, his hands are constantly in the way, shooting mechanic is clumsy (actually the whole touch screen thing is suspect), the enemy reaction mechanics are dull and plain, the enemies themselves are pathetically weak compared to their console counterparts (then there's one that takes like 2 headstomps, lol), there's no ambience or tension due to the crappy sound, graphics and lighting (you know, graphics are actually important for a horror-type game). It's like a Dead Space version of an on-the-rails shooter, the screen is so small and the large enemies take up so much space you basically don't even need to aim and the smaller ones die like flies. He can't react properly or quickly to surprise so it makes all ambushes look stupid. I could go on, but I suspect gameplay variation is low and generally doesn't evolve much past this.

In fact, the only thing I liked about that video was at 6:25 when the guy takes the piss outta all the shit Isaac does. It does look better than RE4, which isn't saying much.

What do you want? It's Dead Space on a fucking phone lmao

[Elcura]

What do you want? It's Dead Space on a fucking phone lmao

I know, it's impressive for what it is given all those limitations, but it's still a cheap imitation rather than a game worth playing. Brands need to be designed on mobile not to copy and emulate consoles because they'll fail. In order for these games to be good, they have to take into account what they can and can't do. Gameplay has to adjust with that, and so far all these games do is take away mechanics and control, rather than adjust to the platform. But that kind of goes against the shovelware mentality for mobile games. Thinking? In my mobile game design? NO.

Again, with time this may not be the case but so far it's just sad.

[Charismatic]

What do you want? It's Dead Space on a fucking phone lmao

The point is that phone gaming sucks compared to everything else. That's what people have been saying and then for some stupid-ass reasons, we've got people arguing that it isn't true. What do you want? Its people being fucking retarded lmao

[Lucavi]

What do you want? It's Dead Space on a fucking phone lmao

But is that how you want to experience your games? Graphically inferior, with inferior gameplay and audio? If you're going to play something that operates mostly as an on-rails FMV due to the cripplingly bad controls, why not just watch movies or streams on your phone?

[Enkidu]

What you're saying doesn't contradict what Correction said. In fact, I really don't understand whether that is what you were trying to do or not. You originally said:

Which he countered by essentially saying "no, there aren't," and you replied by talking about some of the few that do exist. Did you mean to bolster his point to take away from the one you were originally presenting? As he's still right, and what you've said now isn't wrong, but what you said originally is still incorrect. AAA console development is not in fact feasible for a large amount of development houses, and even the major publishers shutter a lot of their developers due to the increasing costs and the higher risk of failure involved. Just look at the recent EA thread in this very forum for more evidence of that, and if you go a little further, you'll find more tales like that.

Honestly I don't know what you don't understand. I originally said there are plenty (did you think I meant all?) of companies thriving in the AAA market, someone says "depends what you mean by thriving", and I explain what thriving means... These companies could not exist without AAA game development and they focus their efforts on AAA games because that's what pays the bills. The whole doom and gloom over big budget games is just trash. It'll go through periods of growth and decline, but it's not something going away any time soon, some of these games are more profitable then the biggest movies of our time.

Nintendo just showcased the fickle nature of casual gamers. They sold a lot of Wii's, didn't sell a lot of games, and now they're right back where the were pre-Wii. It was a rollercoaster for sure, but it ended. The casual games crowd and the big budget games crowd aren't really intertwined anyways. You don't neglect one market just because another opens up, if anything that's what Nintendo learned.

Casual games are not the future of gaming. It's merely a subset.

[GoggleHead]

I'd argue that Nintendo is still in the process of learning that lesson and it probably won't fully sink in until the next hardware generation.

[Don Katsu]

Nintendo's biggest problem for this generation is the console name choice. They had to release a statement to let people know the Wii U is a different console and the controllers are not compatible with the Wii. A friend of mine that works at gamestop said numerous customers would come in asking about the controllers and said they didn't know it was a new console they thought the Wii U was a controller type.

back on topic of SE and Mobile games there are a ton of mobile games out there that are impressive but I can only stare at a 4.8" screen for so long I can't imagine how people would do it on a iPhone.

[Xno Kappa]

Infinity Blade on the iPhone was pretty fun. One of the few games I've seen where the developers knew they were developing for a smartphone and weren't trying to mimic a handheld.

[Lonely]

That also, still, looks terrible to play. You can see the person aims like he's made out of glue, his hands are constantly in the way, shooting mechanic is clumsy (actually the whole touch screen thing is suspect), the enemy reaction mechanics are dull and plain, the enemies themselves are pathetically weak compared to their console counterparts (then there's one that takes like 2 headstomps, lol), there's no ambience or tension due to the crappy sound, graphics and lighting (you know, graphics are actually important for a horror-type game). It's like a Dead Space version of an on-the-rails shooter, the screen is so small and the large enemies take up so much space you basically don't even need to aim and the smaller ones die like flies. He can't react properly or quickly to surprise so it makes all ambushes look stupid. I could go on, but I suspect gameplay variation is low and generally doesn't evolve much past this.

In fact, the only thing I liked about that video was at 6:25 when the guy takes the piss outta all the shit Isaac does. It does look better than RE4, which isn't saying much.

Ever think he is a bit stiff because there is a camera between him and the device? Anyways keep in mind Dead space on mobile was released in early 2011, the enemies die easier because its normal mode and its still fairly early at chapter 4, hard is actually challenging and there is a nightmare mode as well. The sound is great and the game recommends you use headphones for better immersion, you must be absolutely fucking blind if you think the graphics are crap. It looks better than anything that's come from the vita which is going to stay the same for the next 5 years.

[Elcura]

All I see are excuses.

you must be absolutely fucking blind if you think the graphics are crap. It looks better than anything that's come from the vita which is going to stay the same for the next 5 years.

Stop playin'. Graphics are ass. Don't even try to argue they aren't.

[Salodin]

Did some one really just say those graphics were better then the games on vita?

Really?

[Lucavi]

I mean, there are fanboys, and then there's this.

Please attempt to remain somewhat objective!

[Kohan]

Honestly I don't know what you don't understand. I originally said there are plenty (did you think I meant all?) of companies thriving in the AAA market, someone says "depends what you mean by thriving", and I explain what thriving means... These companies could not exist without AAA game development and they focus their efforts on AAA games because that's what pays the bills.

Except it doesn't if you're not releasing something that's a guaranteed sell. Do you read about the game industry at all? You seem to do so at least casually, as you mentioned some specific numbers earlier, but you appear to be completely unfamiliar with the growing discomfort of heightening development costs. That, and you don't appear to recognize the stark difference in the profitability of an AAA console title versus a top-of-the-line smart device title.

The whole doom and gloom over big budget games is just trash. It'll go through periods of growth and decline, but it's not something going away any time soon, some of these games are more profitable then the biggest movies of our time.

"Some," yes, but not a number substantial enough to keep a videogame development studio going, especially if they follow up a hit with a sales (not necessarily critical) dud or two. Additionally, said development is rapidly reaching the point where the average consumer isn't going to notice the difference separating the previous generation's graphics from the current generation's.

Nintendo just showcased the fickle nature of casual gamers. They sold a lot of Wii's, didn't sell a lot of games, and now they're right back where the were pre-Wii.

That's completely incorrect. This isn't even a matter of opinion, it's just a matter of being wrong. They aren't "right back where they were" because consumers are fickle. They ruined a decades-long in-the-black streak by releasing confusing and unnecessary hardware iterations, like the 3DS and the Wii U. The Wii is still selling today, and better than the Wii U. Nintendo's problem isn't that the Wii was a mistake (it wasn't); it was perhaps the smartest thing that they created since the Super Nintendo, or the original Nintendo DS.

I understand that you're passionate about this, but the things you're saying are simply misguided at best, and incorrect at worst. AAA titles aren't going away anytime soon, but that does not mean they pay the bills well. Smart devices aren't becoming popular, they've already been popular and are only increasing in popularity. Nintendo didn't screw up when they released the Wii, they screwed up with the 3DS and the Wii U.

If you want to learn more about these things, there aren't just myriad stories specifying otherwise here on BG's gaming forum, but there are plenty of others that you can read on Wired, Bloomberg, Gamasutra, and so on. You can go through each company's own financials and related announcements, just like the slides in the beginning of this thread.

[Correction]

It'll go through periods of growth and decline, but it's not something going away any time soon, some of these games are more profitable then the biggest movies of our time.

These periods of growth and decline are not like the tides. They happen because companies reform their cost structure and what AAA development and publishing has learned in the last five years is that the current cost structure is unsustainable. You cannot spend $60-$200 million making and then marketing games that sell for $50/$60 per copy at retail channels indefinitely. That is not working and it won't survive another console transition without serious changes, which is what you are seeing EA, Activision, Square Enix and most recently Ubisoft coming to grips with in all of their investor calls.

There isn't some magic mojo to AAA publishing that makes it profitable. There are big boy economic realities framed with terms like 'return on investment' and 'opportunity cost' and huge, multibillion dollar publishers are all feeling pain because they've let such priorities slip in the last console generation, mostly because of out of control costs. Profitable? Yes. Sustainable for a 3-8 thousand employee company? Hell no.