Hacker News Reader

Comment by phaus | Hacker News Reader

With the exception of the steam box, you listed mobile gaming platforms.

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.

View on HN

It's surprising to see so many people on HN of all places arguing that Sony is not competing with mobile. The previous poster used the term "disruption" for a reason - this is straight out of Innovator's Dilemma.

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.

I think that we'll eventually reach the threshold where devices of all sizes have true "retina" quality screens, along with GPUs powerful enough to back them up, but that won't happen in the next generation of consoles, and even if it did, there is still one astronomical hurdle we have to jump in order to level the playing field.

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.

I agree with everything you said, just not that it will happen within the timespan of this console generation.

I don't understand what you are saying. According to Apple's 2012 10K filing, both the iPhone and iPad lines independently, each year, net more than Sony's entire market cap.

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.

It hasn't sailed. People are still buying those games; in fact those games are still breaking sales records. Casual games may become more popular, I don't know, but it's not zero-sum when the gaming market is growing overall.

> the gaming market is growing overall.

False: http://business.time.com/2013/02/11/game-over-why-video-game...

You're comparing an insanely popular mobile phone and a general-purpose computing platform to an Xbox. While they are both mobile devices and both can play games, neither is really mobile gaming hardware per se. I mean, you're obviously not wrong that making the iPhone is good business, but iPhone owners are not primarily gamers -- not even casual ones -- so counting every iPhone sold as a "game hardware" sale at this point is pretty misleading.

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.

The Ouya is a console with a controller. It won't just be casual games and it won't suffer from terrible control schemes. I have my doubts it will do much to Sony, but I'm glad to see the additional options coming.

Options are always great, and a console like Ouya will serve a lot of people better than a more expensive console.

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.

You had me until Contra. I loved Contra when I was that age too, but it's not in the same galaxy as Tetris, Metroid, or the original Zelda.

I actually couldn't really get into Metroid. I'm a 3rd generation military brat that ended up joining the Army so I think the theme of Contra appealed more to me. In the grand scheme of things, I agree Metroid was more influential, but I just didn't like it.

I can't believe I forgot to mention Tetris though.

Ouya is not even out yet, and just because it found 100 000 clients on Kickstarter does not mean it will be much bigger once it reaches the market. And it's probably "too cheap" in terms of hardware to motivate anyone serious with gaming to buy it.

mrbill, not sure if you know but you are [dead]. Anyway, for me being serious about gaming is not just about playing good games of all ages, but also keep trying NEW games. I would not be satisfied playing with the Atari 2600 forever.

The Ouya is too slow to make a dent in the hardcore gamer market.

It might very well sell ok, but not to replace PS4's or any other "real" consoles.

I mean, spec-wise, the Ouya doesn't compare with the PS4 - 2gb ram to 8gb right off the bat.

Guess how much RAM the PS3 and 360 have.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com