Epic is butthurt over mobile gaming

[FireGrey]

"How do you sell someone a $60 game"
Umm, MAKE THE GAME CHEAPER!!!

Anyway 99 cent games are just pieces of junk that you play for like 5 minutes.
I rather pirate

 

[KingVamp]

You just never played good one, machomuu.
There something lacking in those. Plus do they even compare to games on gaming devices?

And how much does those cost anyway?

Personally I believe it is about time to make our consoles, phones, palmtops, music players and GPS systems have group sex and spawn a device that'll do all that.

rooting for Xperia Play.
I rather have a device that look like a gaming device that has phone capabilities than a device that look like a phone with gaming capabilities(which iphone doesn't come close to fitting that vision).

How much would a true device like that cost?
QUOTE(FireGrey @ Apr 23 2011, 11:40 PM)

"How do you sell someone a $60 game"
Umm, MAKE THE GAME CHEAPER!!!

Anyway 99 cent games are just pieces of junk that you play for like 5 minutes.
I rather pirate

Which will in return make the game quality (gameplay, length , graphics(most likely), ect ) go down.

quality > quantity Well some times.

2X Good games ($30 + $30) VS 1 Great game ($60).

Of course 99 cent games are exceptions where it defiantly quality > quantity

TBH It just feel off not gaming on a gaming device VS on a phone anyway.

 

[cwstjdenobs]

The problem is every game nowadays is trying to be a AAA title, with voice acting and pre-rendered cutscenes and all this other expensive shit, when half the time the gameplay itself is "meh".

Companies could cut their costs in half or more by cutting out the other shit and focusing on the gameplay.

I mean, there's some free flash games I'll play more than a lot of $60 titles for modern consoles. :\

The companies are just getting worried now that people have other outlets for entertainment, they don't HAVE to pay $60 for a game because there's cheaper alternatives, and sometimes the game is actually more fun.

Quoted for great justice.

Maybe it's time we had a big push so that everyone who can remember Space Invaders, Q*bert, Centipede, Frogger, Elite, and others dig out there old Acorns/Commodore's/Atari's/Sinclair's/whatever and make some current "hardcore gamers" play some games that are actually hard and really fun without gazzilions of polygons representing the blood splatter...

 

[Rydian]

I'm not saying they all have to be shitty iphone games, and I'm not just talking about digital-only.

When a big company has to charge $60 to make a decent profit because they spent millions of dollars to make a game that rates a 6/10 while some single guy can go make some indie game that makes it onto steam and becomes a 10/10 hit sensation, the big company is a failure at it's job (producing entertainment and marketing it for sale to the masses).

Now everybody's realizing it, and the big companies don't like that. They want people to keep thinking that games need to cost $60 because they cost so much to create.


ADDITION: It really strikes home when you consider that I know some guys (myself included) that would rather play Super Princess Peach than Call Of Duty. My little brother and I saw a commercial for SPP years ago, and we looked at each other and were all "Wow that game looks fun!", because the commercial actually showed some gameplay, and it looked like a fun game to play. On the opposite side, sometimes I see commercials for modern games that are supposed to appeal to "hardcore gamers", and half the time there's no gameplay. Just cutscenes and voiceovers. You know, like we're going to be watching a movie, not playing a game.

When the commercials show zero gameplay, that's often a hint that there's nothing exciting in the actual game itself for them to show you. :\

 

[KevInChester]

ADDITION: It really strikes home when you consider that I know some guys (myself included) that would rather play Super Princess Peach than Call Of Duty. My little brother and I saw a commercial for SPP years ago, and we looked at each other and were all "Wow that game looks fun!", because the commercial actually showed some gameplay, and it looked like a fun game to play. On the opposite side, sometimes I see commercials for modern games that are supposed to appeal to "hardcore gamers", and half the time there's no gameplay. Just cutscenes and voiceovers. You know, like we're going to be watching a movie, not playing a game.

I could not agree more! Can't stand the trend for game advertisements that don't bother showing more than one femtosecond of gameplay.

 

[nando]

i think the iphone is simply exposing how overpriced the gaming market really is.

 

[MelodieOctavia]

I don't see why Epic is so Anus pained.

There are very few people, if any at all that have a hard day at work, they come home, grab a cold one and say to themselves...."Ahhhh...Now I'm ready for a few rounds of Angry Birds!"

No, they most likely pick up a Wii/PS3/360 controller and fire up the $60 game of their liking.

 

[Shabutie78]

Companies could cut their costs in half or more by cutting out the other shit and focusing on the gameplay.
then we'd have lots of cheaper crappy-looking games that play well instead of slightly more expensive flashy pretty-looking games that play well.
no offense, rydian but not everyone doesn't give a damn about the way videogames look. at least not on consoles (mainly 360/PS3).
people who say "gameplay is everything" are being extremely unrealistic. graphics are a part of a game just as much as gameplay.

and,

QUOTE(Rydian @ Apr 24 2011, 01:41 PM) ADDITION: It really strikes home when you consider that I know some guys (myself included) that would rather play Super Princess Peach than Call Of Duty. My little brother and I saw a commercial for SPP years ago, and we looked at each other and were all "Wow that game looks fun!", because the commercial actually showed some gameplay, and it looked like a fun game to play. On the opposite side, sometimes I see commercials for modern games that are supposed to appeal to "hardcore gamers", and half the time there's no gameplay. Just cutscenes and voiceovers. You know, like we're going to be watching a movie, not playing a game.

When the commercials show zero gameplay, that's often a hint that there's nothing exciting in the actual game itself for them to show you. :\

it's about time people realize what the gaming industry has become. it's something that everyone knows about. videogames are being made to be aimed and marketed directly toward a certain people. those who get excited over a CoD commercial know exactly what it is and are most likely anticipating the release, and that's what infinity ward expects.
a new final fantasy commercial is shown on TV and all the JRPG fans shit their pants, and square-enix knows this. this isn't 198x-199x where you have to see actual gameplay of a game on a commercial to know what the game or franchise is about. just my two cents.

 

[Rydian]

people who say "gameplay is everything" are being extremely unrealistic. graphics are a part of a game just as much as gameplay.I never said that. I said that crappy gameplay makes a game unappealing. I did not say anything directly connecting graphics to how fun the game is. The connection with graphics was with gameplay, and I was comparing people and companies who focus development on one over the other.

QUOTE(Shabutie78 @ Apr 24 2011, 10:19 PM) this isn't 198x-199x where you have to see actual gameplay of a game on a commercial to know what the game or franchise is about. just my two cents.

If you want to attract new people and grow your industry, you've gotta' market to new people. Using the jRPG example, not everybody knows what a jRPG is like. If the commercial had a little info on the product's makeup that'd be a lot more informational. Most people might look at the next final fantasy and think "Well I didn't play the other 10 so I'd be lost on this one", not knowing that the main game series don't follow a linear story and you don't need to have played the older ones to enjoy the newer ones. I used the Super Princess Peach game as an example of how the commercial focused on the gameplay to get my interest, and get me to buy something I would not naturally be curious about.

Despite how much they'd like it, a game company's customer base is not static. People leave it as they grow up and/or get busy or discover new hobbies, and a growing company is looking to get more customers anyways.

Another example, somebody gave me the PC version of Final Fantasy 7. He had gotten it as a gift and wasn't into trying it, thinking it was just going to be some fantasy where you shoot fireballs at mutants for 50 hours. Well, I started playing it in front of him... when I got to the NPC in Sector 7 that was drunk and talked about the homemade cocktails, the guy laughed. He was honestly impressed that the game tried to showcase real characters and get you feeling like you're taking part in a movie. Coming from the gaming background he did, this fairly-mundane aspect of RPGs we take for granted was new to him.

I may look at a CoD commercial and not give it a second thought, because it's not my kind of game... but what if there's some great new feature in it that's the main selling point? Other people may know it, but if my exposure is just the commercial, I'm not going to know it. It's a company's job to make the commercial appeal to people who aren't already interested in buying it. If that doesn't happen the commercial is a failure.

 

[Shabutie78]

the internet has become such a necessary part of life. television isn't the only way to market. you don't just see a commercial for a game and with that alone, you decide whether or not you're going to buy it.
people use the internet to research things when a commercial peaks their interest, or when they see a cool-looking billboard.

i don't even own a television since i moved in with my girlfriend, but the internet keeps me more up to date on new videogames and more informed than any television commercial ever could. now, if you're talking about general advertising to the general unknowing consumer (which i think you are), then i don't think that developers care to appeal to them since there are so millions more people who do know what their franchise is. also, the general consumer is much less likely to buy bulletstorm even once they've found out all about it than their hardcore FPS fan counterpart. now what do you think matters more - displaying all the cool features in a noob-friendly way or making their game look badass and hype it up for the people whom they know are going to buy it?

i'm not saying commercials shouldn't have gameplay in them. i actually agree with you that they should.
i hate watching a trailer for a game and all it shows are pre-rendered cutscenes and voice overs. in fact, i refuse to watch those kinds of trailers and previews.
i'm only talking about the mentality behind such commercials as honestly i see them necessary considering how large the Gamindustri has grown to be.

 

[Rydian]

people use the internet to research things when a commercial peaks their interest

The problem is when something is aimed at existing customers, and not new ones.

I'm not going to google what's new in the latest Call Of Duty because I Just Don't Care™, 'ya know? Yeah it may have fantastic graphics, but that alone doesn't make a game. If I'm not interested in the gameplay I'm not interested in the gameplay. If I just want to sit and look at something I'll watch a movie.

 

[FireGrey]

You just never played good one, machomuu.
There something lacking in those. Plus do they even compare to games on gaming devices?

And how much does those cost anyway?

Personally I believe it is about time to make our consoles, phones, palmtops, music players and GPS systems have group sex and spawn a device that'll do all that.

rooting for Xperia Play.
I rather have a device that look like a gaming device that has phone capabilities than a device that look like a phone with gaming capabilities(which iphone doesn't come close to fitting that vision).

How much would a true device like that cost?
QUOTE(FireGrey @ Apr 23 2011, 11:40 PM)

"How do you sell someone a $60 game"
Umm, MAKE THE GAME CHEAPER!!!

Anyway 99 cent games are just pieces of junk that you play for like 5 minutes.
I rather pirate

Which will in return make the game quality (gameplay, length , graphics(most likely), ect ) go down.

quality > quantity Well some times.

2X Good games ($30 + $30) VS 1 Great game ($60).

Of course 99 cent games are exceptions where it defiantly quality > quantity

TBH It just feel off not gaming on a gaming device VS on a phone anyway.

I got Ratchet and Clank 3 a while back for $30, big difference for a big load of crap that cost $100.

 

[KingVamp]

i think the iphone is simply exposing how overpriced the gaming market really is.

um... No just no. More like how cheap in terms in quality the iphone really is.

 

[machomuu]

Companies could cut their costs in half or more by cutting out the other shit and focusing on the gameplay.

people who say "gameplay is everything" are being extremely unrealistic. graphics are a part of a game just as much as gameplay.

A. No one said that
B. Graphics aren't as important as gameplay. They play a part, but a game with crappy graphics can have amazing gameplay, this has been proven time and time again. Even if you disagree, gameplay is definitely more important.

 

[KingVamp]

Companies could cut their costs in half or more by cutting out the other shit and focusing on the gameplay.

people who say "gameplay is everything" are being extremely unrealistic. graphics are a part of a game just as much as gameplay.

A. No one said that
B. Graphics aren't as important as gameplay. They play a part, but a game with crappy graphics can have amazing gameplay, this has been proven time and time again. Even if you disagree, gameplay is definitely more important.

Like pokemon,old Zelda and Mario games correct?

 

[dib]

Oh lulz. The entire iOS brand - poster child for "how to sell stuff for far more than its worth and still get people who buy them".
I paid $200 for my iPhone. That's roughly the same I paid for my first PSP. But unlike my PSP, I've been able to just about fill it with great games and apps for about the cost of a single PC/360/PS3 game. Just in this weekend alone we've seen a huge wave in sales across many major publishers and developers.

Far more than it's worth? I'd love to see how far you can get with a DS and $20.

Yes, the iOS is far more saturated with crap than the DS. It also has far less decent games and nowhere near as many excellent games. Apple's approach to the mobile gaming market is no different to how Atari handled the video game market - with no limit on the number of submissions and no quality control, anyone can get anything published on the App Store - and we all saw what happened in '83. The mobile market will have a crash of its own and Apple will be the ones to blame.
I couldn't possibly disagree more with you if your user handle was Wrongy McWrongstein.

What we've seen in the app store is a vetting process where developers have to compete for our time and money. This sort of survival-of-the-fittest is essentially a conclusive scientific tenet guaranteed to produce more worthwhile specimens.

If they don't offer a great hook; if their game is bug ridden and crashes; if they haven't given people something to feel like their money was well spent, they get downvoted to the lowest depths of shame until they fix their product. There is a level of consumer recourse here that most console owners can only dream about.

Afterall, how many retail stores post customer feedback and criticisms right next to the game? When you shop on the app store, they're offered right there before you ever have to hit the buy button.

Meanwhile, most major apps with a more serious pricetag are frowned upon if they don't offer a free lite/demo version--something the larger game industry has famously dragged its heels on providing.

Picking up a piece of shovelware for the DS will set you back $20-$30, while a poor app is $1-$2. I've been disappointed by a couple already, but was able to shrug my shoulders each time and say "oh well" because very little was lost.

I don't know how much experience you actually have with the app store and observing the trends going on there, but it's just about the opposite of what you're making it out to be.

QUOTE

Doodle Fit, a minigame being sold for 59p with £3.57 worth of "DLC" that only adds a couple of themes, unlocks all the levels and grants unlimited hints. Even if I were generous and said it has sold 100'000 times, that's still only £59'000. Of which even DS games only need to sell 2'000 copies to exceed. The large numbers might look impressive on paper, but they're not. 59p for a minigame isn't much of an investment, which is also why the popularity of Angry Birds is grossly overstated. I'm pretty sure most were like yours truly, who bought it while on the loo out of boredom and hasn't touched it since.

I had to laugh aloud at your "still only £59'000" remark. What's the last thing you produced that generated that much money? Just how much money do you think they had to make to recoup their expenses?

Nobody is saying that making one app is going to allow you to retire. And perhaps it's for the best if we are watching the end of a bloated industry of execs flying private jets on the backs of developers who had their last two paychecks withheld and were stiffed on overtime for months on end.

 

[Shabutie78]

Companies could cut their costs in half or more by cutting out the other shit and focusing on the gameplay.

people who say "gameplay is everything" are being extremely unrealistic. graphics are a part of a game just as much as gameplay.

A. No one said that
B. Graphics aren't as important as gameplay. They play a part, but a game with crappy graphics can have amazing gameplay, this has been proven time and time again. Even if you disagree, my opinion is that gameplay is definitely more important.

what do you mean no one said that? there are thousands of people who will blindly tell you that gameplay is everything in a game. i never said anyone mentioned it in this thread - i said people who do say it. read more carefully.
i'll give you that, in general graphics aren't as important as gameplay. but even though the majority rules, it's all based on opinion. to one, gameplay can be more important than graphics, to another - graphics more important than gameplay. then there are some who think they're equally as important.
it's all based on opinion and you can't deny that. and that they're equally important is just my opinion.

ps: i fixed your closing sentence.

 

[machomuu]

Companies could cut their costs in half or more by cutting out the other shit and focusing on the gameplay.

people who say "gameplay is everything" are being extremely unrealistic. graphics are a part of a game just as much as gameplay.

A. No one said that
B. Graphics aren't as important as gameplay. They play a part, but a game with crappy graphics can have amazing gameplay, this has been proven time and time again. Even if you disagree, gameplay is definitely more important.

what do you mean no one said that? there are thousands of people who will blindly tell you that gameplay is everything in a game. i never said anyone mentioned it in this thread - i said people who do say it. read more carefully.
i'll give you that, in general graphics aren't as important as gameplay. but even though the majority rules, it's all based on opinion. to one, gameplay can be more important than graphics, to another - graphics more important than gameplay. then there are some who think they're equally as important.
it's all based on opinion and you can't deny that. and that they're equally important is just my opinion.

ps: i fixed your closing sentence.

I would say it's my opinion, but there is proof. Look at Megaman 9, while it is meant to have the graphics it has, it is still a very popular game despite the fact that this '90s+ age group has no reason to like it, but they do. Moreover, despite trying to have the same graphics as Megaman 2, it still doesn't hold up to the graphics of today, so by your logic it shouldn't have sold well because if graphics and gameplay are equally important, the game would have bombed.

Next, let's take another example. Monster Hunter Tri, one of the most well known non-casual games on the Wii, has okay graphics. Now if we compare it to a game like Perfect Dark Zero, despite the fact that that game came out way before it, Monster Hunter Tri still doesn't look good in comparison, but the fact is it sold more than 1,480,000 worldwide by the end of 2009 shows that people did look past the graphics and saw the game for what it actually was.

 

[Shabutie78]

I would say it's my opinion, but there is proof. Look at Megaman 9, while it is meant to have the graphics it has, it is still a very popular game despite the fact that this '90s+ age group has no reason to like it, but they do. Moreover, despite trying to have the same graphics as Megaman 2, it still doesn't hold up to the graphics of today, so by your logic it shouldn't have sold well because if graphics and gameplay are equally important, the game would have bombed.

Next, let's take another example. Monster Hunter Tri, one of the most well known non-casual games on the Wii, has okay graphics. Now if we compare it to a game like Perfect Dark Zero, despite the fact that that game came out way before it, Monster Hunter Tri still doesn't look good in comparison, but the fact is it sold more than 1,480,000 worldwide by the end of 2009 shows that people did look past the graphics and saw the game for what it actually was.

megaman 9 was a throwback to retro megamans, which is great. you're acting like i'm saying that if a game doesn't have awesome graphics, it shouldn't sell.
you don't understand my logic, you're kinda just filling in the gaps with assumptions

basically what you're assuming is that i think that NES games are shit because we have PS3-level graphics these days. i care about gameplay just as much as graphics.
i don't compare NES graphics to PS3 graphics. that's just idiotic. and your assumption that i would do that is almost as idiotic (no offense).
when i talk about graphics, i mostly mean the comparing of NES to NES, DS to DS or PS3 to PS3 etc etc. i wouldn't compare the graphics of two systems that are totally different in hardware, software, and capabilities.

and how is there "proof" of your opinion? is that even possible? i don't mean to derail this topic any further, so i'll just stop and leave it at this.
opinions are opinions, no matter how strongly you may believe in them.

 

[machomuu]

I would say it's my opinion, but there is proof. Look at Megaman 9, while it is meant to have the graphics it has, it is still a very popular game despite the fact that this '90s+ age group has no reason to like it, but they do. Moreover, despite trying to have the same graphics as Megaman 2, it still doesn't hold up to the graphics of today, so by your logic it shouldn't have sold well because if graphics and gameplay are equally important, the game would have bombed.

Next, let's take another example. Monster Hunter Tri, one of the most well known non-casual games on the Wii, has okay graphics. Now if we compare it to a game like Perfect Dark Zero, despite the fact that that game came out way before it, Monster Hunter Tri still doesn't look good in comparison, but the fact is it sold more than 1,480,000 worldwide by the end of 2009 shows that people did look past the graphics and saw the game for what it actually was.

megaman 9 was a throwback to retro megamans, which is great. you're acting like i'm saying that if a game doesn't have awesome graphics, it shouldn't sell.
you don't understand my logic, you're kinda just filling in the gaps with assumptions

basically what you're assuming is that i think that NES games are shit because we have PS3-level graphics these days. i care about gameplay just as much as graphics.
i don't compare NES graphics to PS3 graphics. that's just idiotic. and your assumption that i would do that is almost as idiotic (no offense).
when i talk about graphics, i mostly mean the comparing of NES to NES, DS to DS or PS3 to PS3 etc etc. i wouldn't compare the graphics of two systems that are totally different in hardware, software, and capabilities.

and how is there "proof" of your opinion? is that even possible? i don't mean to derail this topic any further, so i'll just stop and leave it at this.
opinions are opinions, no matter how strongly you may believe in them.

I think it's my logic you don't understand. And plus, I didn't assume anywhere in there, I simply diagnosed what you said, and if my diagnosis was wrong, correct me, but there were no assumptions. If I believed my opinion was fact, I would have stated it as opinion. Moreover, this isn't derailing the thread as at the very base this is what it's about.