The Near-Future of Mobile Gaming Is Going to Be Pretty Epic

[Baileyneverfailey]

I actually read a piece in a magazine where they were talking about this very topic: whether casual mobile games would push handheld gaming as we know it out of the market. The answer in that piece, unsurprisingly, was no. Some of the market share of people who only play the most casually on their DS or PSP have moved over so that the handheld market has shrunk, but it's not enough to predict that the real handhelds are going anywhere.

The comparison they made was how youtube's success didn't suddenly massacre movie theater sales. It's casual versus full fledged gaming, and there is room for both to exist, clearly.

 

[theogt]

I actually read a piece in a magazine where they were talking about this very topic: whether casual mobile games would push handheld gaming as we know it out of the market. The answer in that piece, unsurprisingly, was no. Some of the market share of people who only play the most casually on their DS or PSP have moved over so that the handheld market has shrunk, but it's not enough to predict that the real handhelds are going anywhere.

The comparison they made was how youtube's success didn't suddenly massacre movie theater sales. It's casual versus full fledged gaming, and there is room for both to exist, clearly.

I hope this wasn't the same article that told you that smartphone gaming was only a "fingernail" of the market.

 

[theogt]

What's interesting to me is that console gaming revenue is increasing while handheld seems to be shrinking:

Smartphone gaming has lower sales prices due to the structure of the delivery system (though that will change over time). So as smartphone gaming rapidly increases its percentage of sales volume of mobile gaming, revenue from all mobile gaming will decrease (at least in the short term). What would be more interesting is to look at the % of playing time of all gaming.

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

I hope this wasn't the same article that told you that smartphone gaming was only a "fingernail" of the market.

Admittedly I was being hyperbolic when I said that, and obviously the revenue from mobile games is much higher than I thought it was. Of course, that doesn't change my opinion that dedicated handhelds are not going away, but mobile games are definitely part of the future of handheld gaming overall.

I have no dog in this fight regardless, because I don't really play handheld games. Even when I own them I rarely if ever play them. On an airplane is about the only time I even think about doing so, and then I always just end up reading instead.

 

[theogt]

Admittedly I was being hyperbolic when I said that, and obviously the revenue from mobile games is much higher than I thought it was. Of course, that doesn't change my opinion that dedicated handhelds are not going away, but mobile games are definitely part of the future of handheld gaming overall.

I have no dog in this fight regardless, because I don't really play handheld games. Even when I own them I rarely if ever play them. On an airplane is about the only time I even think about doing so, and then I always just end up reading instead.

Was just ribbin' ya.

I don't play handheld games either. I play sudoku on my iPhone, that's about it. When I hear of some highly touted game, I'll usually play it for a week until I get tired of it. But I don't play console gaming either anymore.

 

[TheCount]

Smartphone gaming has lower sales prices due to the structure of the delivery system (though that will change over time). So as smartphone gaming rapidly increases its percentage of sales volume of mobile gaming, revenue from all mobile gaming will decrease (at least in the short term). What would be more interesting is to look at the % of playing time of all gaming.

I think it's more an issue of content than delivery system. Apple's delivery system is nearly flawless as it is.

You will never be able to get a potential customer to pay $34.99 for Angry Birds, there's just not enough there.

What iOS games have on their side right now is that you don't need a full fledged studio or millions in advertising to get your game to market, so you can make a killing 99 cents at a time.

 

[theogt]

I think it's more an issue of content than delivery system. Apple's delivery system is nearly flawless as it is.

You will never be able to get a potential customer to pay $34.99 for Angry Birds, there's just not enough there.

What iOS games have on their side right now is that you don't need a full fledged studio or millions in advertising to get your game to market, so you can make a killing 99 cents at a time.

Developers have complained about the structure. 99% of people look at the most downloaded apps and the most downloaded apps are the cheapest or free apps, which only drives the cycle of cheaper apps. Apple added the "top grossing" category, which has helped, but developers still claim it's a problem. They say they'd love to invest the time/money is developing "more" or "better" content for higher prices, but the delivery system basically nips that in the bud.

A news story came out yesterday, I believe, that Apple is re-vamping its ranking system to incorporate the amount of playing time for apps. Meaning, if your app is continually used, rather than being used a few times and deleted, you'll have a higher rating. That should help as well. But the reality is, a $20 game could be X times better than your average $1 game. But it isn't going to get on someone's App system under the current delivery system unless they seek it out.