It doesn't matter if they are Microsoft II since Microsoft is their only competition in this space.
http://greenthrottle.com/ - Play mobile games on your TV
http://www.bluestacks.com/ - Play mobile games on your PC
http://www.ouya.tv/ - Android gaming console
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/6/3958162/valve-steam-box-cak... - Play games sold on Steam directly on your TV
I will probably buy a PS4 just for FIFA XX
Purchasing a console to play only non-exclusive titles... I have never understood that.
A PC will ALWAYS do more things than a console, and the better you PC config is, the better all your applications will run so it's win-win for all you do with it.
Besides, even games are cheaper and faster to buy on PC. So compare the price of a PS3 with 30 games with one of a PC with 30 games and you will see your argument is wrong.
I just told you. It's cheaper. That's not some obscure "gotcha" reason.
Mobile games thus far can be placed into one of two categories:
A: Ports of obsolete PC/Console games with terrible control schemes.
B: Casual games.
The last time around, Sony tried to position itself as the platform for hardcore gamers. It appears that they are doing the same thing with the PS4. Hardcore gamers only play casual games either when they are away from home, or when they don't have time to play on their platform of choice. I'm not sure who technically won between Sony and MS, but it wasn't a landslide victory.
Don't get me wrong, casual games are great. Nintendo, Apple and Google have proven that there is a huge market for casual games, and it probably has a larger market than there is for hardcore gaming, I don't really know. Even if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean that traditional gaming is going to die.
It might very well sell ok, but not to replace PS4's or any other "real" consoles.
PS3: 256MB for the Cell and GPU each 360: 512MB shared
I don't think Ouya is worth anything, but comparing RAM sizes is almost useless.
But take a game like space invaders. When it came out, it was new and shiny and amazing. When I played it in the late 80's (My parents were too cheap for a Nintendo, I didn't play one of those until the SNES / Genesis were already out.) It was so awesome that I couldn't imagine any game ever being better. Now, decades later, it's still a good game, but it's so simplistic in comparison to current games, that I can't see myself playing it for hours on end.
Now take a game like Grand Theft Auto 3, represents one of the more complex / graphically intensive games ported to Android / IOS. When it was first released, it too was an amazing game. I spent countless hours driving around, shooting things, and completing the missions. While it was amazing for it's time, in comparison to this generation's games, the graphics are dated and the game play seems to lack depth. Once again, I can't see myself enjoying it now for more than a few minutes.
There are some games that are truly timeless, like Contra, Mario, Chess, Go, Quake 3 Arena, Mario Kart, etc.., but most console and PC games don't age well.
I can't believe I forgot to mention Tetris though.
Sony and its advocates will argue that their focus is on serious/hardcore gamers, not casual/mobile gaming. Casual gamers don't pay premium prices and there may even be a smaller margin on mobile sales, such that it currently makes business sense to yield that market. But the PS is locked into long hardware development cycles and the platform needs to support games for years into the future, while mobile hardware is updated continuously such that the difference between the platforms will shrink - stealing away increasing numbers of consumers and development shops.
How can there be any question of mobile game hardware surpassing hardcore gaming in profitability in the next console generation when it has already occurred?
If you're Activision or Blizzard, sure, the money is still in selling $60 titles. But in terms of hardware manufacturers like Sony and Microsoft, the ship has sailed.
False: http://business.time.com/2013/02/11/game-over-why-video-game...
Most importantly to the point at hand, there is no evidence that iPhone is stealing many sales from Xbox and PS3, nor that it will start in the foreseeable future. I very, very much doubt that many people find themselves wondering whether to get an iPhone or an Xbox to play games on.
Even at it's best, controlling a 3d game with a touch screen is a horrifyingly awful experience. It's so bad that I haven't made it out of the first level of any of the games I've tried. Not because I can't clear the content, but instead because doing so is such an awkward experience, that I'd rather go back to playing angry birds or read HN. As someone who spent his teen years playing GoldenEye, TF Classic, Q3A and Counter-Strike for 12-16 hours at a time, I find it quite an accomplishment when someone manages to make a FPS that I can't stand to play for more than 5 minutes.
I think that it's possible that we'll eventually have a level playing field on all platforms, but I don't think capacitive touch screens are going to be the innovation that makes it a reality.
bf3 sold more copies on PC than both "hardcore" consoles combined. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/18/mouse-keyboard-st...?
My argument is not that people don't want to play CoD. My argument is that even Activision wants Apple and come in and kill the current console paradigm. They don't want to keep making 30% of $60 games that sell 10 million copies when they could be making 70% of a $10 game that moves 50 million copies.
I don't understand. Are you saying that Activision should kill CoD and fund the next Angry Birds so they could sell more copies of a cheaper game, or are you saying that CoD could sell 50 million copies if it was priced at $10?
Both of those claims are questionable. I am pretty sure Activision is scared shitless of becoming the next Rovio, and I doubt CoD would even break even being priced at $10.
Considering that CoD had a 200 million dollar budget, they would need to sell 20 million copies to break even vs 3.33 million, and consider to date (4 months) they have sold 20 million copies.
Even if such a price cut caused sales to double, you would have:
20 million * $60 * 30% - $200 million = $160 million dollars
40 million * $10 * 70% - $200 million = $80 million dollars.
Again, they would break even with their old model if they sold ~50 million copies, however, I don't think "hardcore" gaming is that price sensitive, and I doubt we would see a 150% increase in sales if you cut CoD's price to $10.
Lastly, where would these people come from? I don't think Activision has an untapped market 5x their current market size that want to buy Call of Duty but only for $10. Even if you talk about opening to the "casual" market, Nintendo showed us just how toxic that is. Casual gamers don't buy games. I'm sure its a lot smarter to sell to the gamer who buy 3 games a year @ $60, than it so to sell to 5 people who will buy 1 game /year @ $10. So if Activision could sell 50 million copies of CoD, would that stick them in the same position as Rovio, where all they can do is sell CoD, while WoW and Diablo bleed cash?
Wait, you're doubting whether a price cut of 85% would even double sales? With a demand curve like that someone will need to tell the game companies they are leaving billions on the table when they could be charging $150 a copy.
I'm pretty sure we'd see sales explode on price alone but the limited console installed base is also depressing game sales. A large percentage of high end console users use them primarily for netflix and other non-gaming uses but they aren't marketed effectively for these uses. Apple isn't even marketing the ipad as a game machine but they move far more $300+ units than Sony and MS put together each month.
"I don't think 'hardcore' gaming is that price sensitive"
You're talking yourself into a conclusion here. Not only "hardcore" gamers enjoy playing Call of Duty. {And the notion of console fps players being hardcore itself is problematic}
Microsoft may be the competition right now, but they can't count on it staying that way. When the PSP and PS3 came out, the iPhone didn't exist yet, but things change.
Steam is fantastic, but it's a name that is totally unknown to almost all console gamers. Just the presence of a Steam Box isn't going to magically convert people, they have a huge uphill struggle ahead of them. Most of their market, IMO, is PC gamers.