Topic: The "war" between handheld gaming and smartphones

Yeah... I'm pretty sure Microsoft have bought lots of exclusives from 3rd parties as that's what they've been always doing rather than investing in making their own in-house studios until recently.

They seem to like to throw money around like their in some parade.

Sony has done the same thing recently. They bought Media Molecule earlier this year, and just recently they bought Sucker Punch.

Also, there are still plenty of 3rd-party exclusives. Remember when Microsoft paid millions of dollars for GTA4's exclusive DLC? Look at all the exclusive 3rd-party games that are on the DS and PSP.

When there's a financial reason for doing so, yes. With handheld consoles the DS got the lion's share of 3rd party exclusive because the expense to bring it to PSP as well couldn't be justified.

It's an expensive process to bring a game to multiple platforms. I don't think many people properly realise that.

They seem to like to throw money around like their in some parade.

Microsoft has a very grand vision (not just in games, but in enterprise software, cloud computing and everything else) that requires it to buy a lot of companies. That's what's happening at the moment.

You're somewhat contradicting yourself. You say it's too much of a risk to develop for one platform unless the console owner pays the developer for exclusive content, yet you say it's also expensive to do multiplatform titles. So which is the ideal scenario?

You're right, I should have explained that better.

Handheld projects are typically smaller scale than TV console projects - more limited budget, quicker expected turn over time etc etc.

"Indie" or "Budget" titles are usually exclusive out of necessity - the developer and publisher can't afford multiple platforms.

On the other hand, blockbuster games, like Final Fantasy XIII or Call of Duty, are multiplatform because Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft cannot (or aren't willing to) offer the publishers enough money to keep that brand exclusive.

Sony kept Final Fantasy exclusive to PlayStation for over a decade. Same with Metal Gear Solid.

Final Fantasy VII cost 30 million in development

Final Fantasy XIII was at least twice that.

See the problem with keeping it exclusive now?

That's the publisher's decision to go multiplatform. They decide where they want to take their game. Putting their game on multiple platforms assures them more sales than if it was just on one platform (more potential customers).

And MGS4 still hasn't gone multiplatform. I know the main reason is because the game is huge, it fills up a Blu-Ray disc (the Xbox 360 wouldn't be able to handle a game that big).

I think what we are seeing is that there will be a large market for these casual time-waster games because they are made for non-gamers. Nintendo are probably going to make less money now due to the fact that their casual audience now has a cheap alternative that works for them. They want a game they can play for 5 minutes then go back to whatever they were doing. They don't want epics like Legend of Zelda or even Mario. The thing is that just because there is going to be some lost profit due to the casuals moving elsewhere does not mean the gamer's gaming is dead.

I will use FPS as a perfect example. Obviously this isn't everyone, but FPS have been some a popular trend that young males and females who wouldn't usually play games are buying them. They make loads of money because a lot of people who play them if not the vast majority are not just the gamers but the FPS gamers. They usually only play FPS, they won't even play anything else. Now, does that mean that every other genre is dead, that every game will be FPS or mature rated title that may grab FPS fans? No, it simply means they will be making more money for now. NintendoLife is a great example that even though playing certain more niche games are not the big thing right now, people still buy them, there is still market for them. That is why gaming industry has survives, because gamers will shell out ridiculous amounts of money and they are dedicated to a system. That is what is happening now, Nintendo will not make as much money because the casuals are going to easiest, cheapest option, which is the smartphone. This does not mean Nintendo will die. The FPS craze has not killed Nintendo, the rise in demand for mature games has not killed Nintendo (who doesn't release as many mature games), and this won't kill Nintendo.

They may not make as much money as the craze market right now, but people want depth. My friend just got an Ipad, and while he defintely buys and plays games on it, he puts more time and money in the gamer games. When I got an itouch I played the little games quite often, now I don't touch them at all. This is because for gamers while it is ok at first, most will just go back to Zelda when they get bored, which usually is fast. I think what WaltzElf is trying to say that Nintendo will lose money for now, which is true. I don't think he saying Nintendo and its systems will go extinct, except if obviously he/she corrects me on that. The gaming market has always been niche and will likely stay that way. People buy vinyl records because they want the analog sound quality, love music, and are willing to pay more for a more in-depth product than the average MP3 listener. That is why new vinyl still sells, because there is a dedicated base that will pay money. I think i am starting to repeat myself so I am going to end here.

Here's another point I'd like to make:
"I don't need a game system cause I have a PC."

PC's are much more advanced than game consoles, yet the two devices have coexisted for decades. If PC's and game consoles can coexist, then why can't handhelds and smartphones?

The comparison isn't very analogous (though it's close). Using PC's for gaming can be pretty expensive unless you build it yourself. Even then, the average consumer wouldn't wanna do that (unless he or she has a computer savy friend or relative). While smartphones are more expensive than handhelds, the cost is more justifiable with the price in the hundreds scale (and not thousand(s) like computers). Furthermore, smartphones are more accessible to people with their multi-functionality characteristic AND simplicity. Nevertheless, they can coexist; it just won't be the same with smartphones added to the consumer's choice.

Just promote gaming by giving your nephews/niece/children a handheld or console system

EDIT: @tendoboy To refresh your memory, Metal Gear Solid on PS and PC: 1998; Metal Gear Solid 2 on PS2: 2001; Metal Gear Solid 2 XBOX and PC: 2004; MGS 3 on PS3: 2004; MGS 3 on XBOX and PC: 2006

All are North American dates. But anyways, MGS 4 remains the only main game in the series to be exclusive to a console. That's one exclusive. Not comparable to a decade of exclusivity.

The signs said the same thing about Sega 15 years ago.

Yep.

I don't know anyone who bought a thousand-dollar PC to play some games on it. Most people just buy mid-range PC's ($500 or less). The type of consumer you're talking about is considered a PC enthusiast. They're the ones who constantly upgrade their hardware with top of the line graphics cards, tons of RAM, new CPU's, etc.

I have a smartphone and it has plenty of games, but I still carry m 3DS around with me everywhere and play that when I need something to play.
Smartphones are okay for when you need something to play for a few minutes but there's no way I'd ever consider that a portable gaming console, especially with its lack of physical buttons.
I love my 3DS, and the reason I have a phone is to make phone calls and send text messages, not to play games.

Sony has the Xperia Play, an Android phone with actual PlayStation buttons. I don't know how good it's selling, but it's trying to bridge the gap between handhelds and smartphones (by adding gaming buttons).

And then there's the PS Vita, which has most of the features of an iPhone (minus the calling and texting, obviously).

I just thought of something... When the NPD tracks video game hardware sales, should they include mobile devices like iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod) and Android?

You and many other people. However, times may change. There's already bigger games on Phones, and as they get more and more games like that, I think more and more people will start using it as their primary gaming platform. I don't know whether or not handhelds are in danger right now, but pretty soon companies like Sony and Nintendo are seriously going to have to compete with Phone companies, or else risk losing the casual crowd, and possibly even major gamers.

Wait what.

The reason that Square decided to go with sony was due to technical reasons. The Disc format allowed you to do more (for the sake of convience)

Seeing as the Cube got both Final Fantasy games and Metal gear games it wasn't exclusive.

Now if you want to get into the break down of mainline games that's another thing.

The Xperia play was a decent device but failed due to being but ugly. (still remember when engadget broke the news of it existing )

The Xperia has seemed like a great idea from the first day I heard about it, but for some reason there is just something in the back of my head that doesn't "click" with me. I can't put my finger on it.

A few months ago, Microsoft (I think) filed a patent on a modular slider phone where you could replace the bottom half of the phone with modular pieces. For example, you could pop in the "console" module that would give you a d-pad, buttons, etc. If you weren't a big gamer but loved to text, you could pop in a keyboard module that would give you access to a keyboard. Maybe you just want all touch screens; Pop in the second screen module. Carry one or two with you and mix and match. Seemed like a pretty neat idea.

I agree with what Mickeymac said, the iPhone already has some pretty nifty (yet quite boring) games available. But I just can't help but see phone gaming as just 5-minute casual fun and then move on to something else.

I think the reason these are so popular is because of, for example, people who have to go on a 5-10 minute train journey to and from work, they don't want to be pulling out a Vita or a 3DS and playing Mario or Final Fantasy, so a quick and easy phone game is obviously the better choice. Not to mention the possibility of having said 3DS or Vita stolen.

However, I still prefer an actual handheld compared to a phone that plays games. I think they can both co-exist, but I think it depends on how far phone devs, like Apple, will go to make their phone even more powerful so that it can run any game at 30fps.