Handhelds Are Losing Ground.

[Terminator02]

Oh boy, another "smart phones are gonna kill your handhelds," idiot. They're two separate markets, no matter how hard Apple tries to push their way in. Same goes for that Android stuff from Google. I will never consider them handhelds in the sense that handhelds have come to be known.

When Nvidia has pushed more advanced Tegra chips out the door in the next few years, the PS Vita and 3DS will be eating the dust unfortunately.

A cellphone will never be a handheld. They will never have the third party support they need in the right places. As has been mentioned multiple times, $.99 games are nowhere near the same as what you get on a handheld.

they most certainly do have 3rd party support and it only gets stronger and larger with time, popcap, EA, activision, all of the big publishers realize where we are headed, and most all of them are already in the smartphone business aswell as the traditional handheld markets

and it's not like the app store has nothing but $0.99 apps, developers/publishers can put whatever price they want, as well as make as deep a game as they are willing to

 

[Oveneise]

What a crock of shit. The DS pretty much popularized touch-based gaming and now Nintendo introduces us to Glassless-3D. I'm in no worry. Handhelds are doing good now imo.

 

[Haloman800]

Funny, I do remember getting an iPhone over the other smartphones thinking of all the nice games and ports it had.

And the funnier thing is that most of my handheld gaming is ACTUALLY done on my iPhone.

So, deal with it, that's the direction the market's going. With the even more powerful Tegra 3s and such coming our way, smartphones will be soon on par with the home-consoles in terms of graphical fidelity.

This will mean that most people will choose a 300$ tablet with AWESOME graphics over a 300$ homeconsole with similiar graphics.
Hey, I mean... a tablet is portable and can also browse the web, take pictures and upload them to Facebook. ...Can your console do that?

Yes. It's called a DSi.

 

[TheDarkSeed]

Funny, I do remember getting an iPhone over the other smartphones thinking of all the nice games and ports it had.

And the funnier thing is that most of my handheld gaming is ACTUALLY done on my iPhone.

So, deal with it, that's the direction the market's going. With the even more powerful Tegra 3s and such coming our way, smartphones will be soon on par with the home-consoles in terms of graphical fidelity.

This will mean that most people will choose a 300$ tablet with AWESOME graphics over a 300$ homeconsole with similiar graphics.
Hey, I mean... a tablet is portable and can also browse the web, take pictures and upload them to Facebook. ...Can your console do that?

Yes. It's called a DSi.

Owned

 

[Hielkenator]

I'm 33 and just recently bought a DS Lite with and acekard, ez-flash3in1, and 5 8GB sd cards.
New for about 200 euro's, incl original softshell + see through hard shell.

BEST investment since my Wii 5 years ago, most ds games ( mainly rpg's ) are a very fullfilling gaming experience.

With the addition of the GBA Card slot and my ez flash, I'm also enjoying the WHOLE GBA library.
Add lameboy ( gameboy classic/ color emulator) to the equesion, and it almost 20 years of epic gaming right in your handpalms. YOU CAN"T BEAT THAT.

( I just love pixelart style games. )

 

[DSGamer64]

Oh boy, another "smart phones are gonna kill your handhelds," idiot. They're two separate markets, no matter how hard Apple tries to push their way in. Same goes for that Android stuff from Google. I will never consider them handhelds in the sense that handhelds have come to be known.

When Nvidia has pushed more advanced Tegra chips out the door in the next few years, the PS Vita and 3DS will be eating the dust unfortunately.

A cellphone will never be a handheld. They will never have the third party support they need in the right places. As has been mentioned multiple times, $.99 games are nowhere near the same as what you get on a handheld.

Why can't Tegra or equivalent chips be in handhelds anyway?

You (DSGamer64) at like handhelds can't or not allow to get these chips.

I did not see how phone games can fill you gaming needs over the handhelds...

@Terminator02 np

My point flew over both of your heads. Even now the Tegra 2 chip is a strong piece of technology and the 3DS and PS Vita are going to have a hard time competing with more advanced chips in about 2 or 3 years. Nvidia is pushing Tegra hard, apparently Tegra 3 is in late stages of development and is going to be released soon. The Tegra 2 is a dual core, Tegra 3 is a quad core. If you have seen any of the high end games and applications for Android, you would know that Tegra 2 is already pushing some decent looking games on tablet computers and phones. These aren't cheap little micro games either, obviously some time has been put into making them. It's going to come down to the developers in the next few years as to which direction portable gaming heads. I hate touch screen controls, but the constant visual improvements in Android based portables is improving rapidly.

 

[retKHAAAN]

Something that's being missed in the discussion...

What percentage of "casual" gamers (younger kids/clueless parents/average "non-game-obsessed" people) are going to pay another couple hundred dollars on a handheld when they have a cellphone that can give them access the types of games they play?

Being a "gaming" community here at GBAtemp, it's difficult to understand that while there are many "gamers" worldwide, it's still a niche community. Even further, handheld gaming is a niche community of a niche community. I agree, it's nice having all of these deep, well developed games in my pocket, but I'm in the minority among the people I actually know (in person) who play video games of any sort.

That fact that this is a gaming community, everyone here is likely of the mind that "Handhelds are popular and you can do everything you want with them"... But looking at the market as a whole, it's closer to comparing McDonald's Dollar menu to their "higher end" burgers. Sure, some people would rather have a Double Quarter Pounder w/Cheese, but for most people, a McDouble is enough...

 

[nando]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games. but now that is not the case, now you can have a more useful device that covers many basic gaming needs without having to have a "dedicated gaming" device. therefore yes, handhelds are losing ground. just face it

 

[Nathanaël]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games.

Agree. 50 hours for a game is quite long. And boring. 10-20 hours maximum is OK.

 

[machomuu]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games.

Agree. 50 hours for a game is quite long. And boring. 10-20 hours maximum is OK.

50 hours isn't that long, really.

 

[retKHAAAN]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games.

Agree. 50 hours for a game is quite long. And boring. 10-20 hours maximum is OK.

50 hours isn't that long, really.

exactly nando's point...

 

[machomuu]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games.

Agree. 50 hours for a game is quite long. And boring. 10-20 hours maximum is OK.

50 hours isn't that long, really.

exactly nando's point...

I understand that, but that's not exactly the point of my post, Nando's saying that the majority or casual gamer market buys games that are usually short and time-wasting, while we are used to long[er] games as gamers, However Nathaneal is saying that 50 hours is too long for a game, and 10-20 hours is good, which wasn't exactly Nando's point. We're talking short and sweet games that sell for little and for the most part are unseen on consoles.

 

[retKHAAAN]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games.

Agree. 50 hours for a game is quite long. And boring. 10-20 hours maximum is OK.

50 hours isn't that long, really.

exactly nando's point...

I understand that, but that's not exactly the point of my post, Nando's saying that the majority or casual gamer market buys games that are usually short and time-wasting, while we are used to long[er] games as gamers, However Nathaneal is saying that 50 hours is too long for a game, and 10-20 hours is good, which wasn't exactly Nando's point.

I see. so you're just demonstrating the different tiers then? Nathanael is a more "casual" gamer while you are more "hardcore"? To the casual gamer, 50+ hours of story is a pretty substantial investment of time.

 

[machomuu]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games.

Agree. 50 hours for a game is quite long. And boring. 10-20 hours maximum is OK.

50 hours isn't that long, really.

exactly nando's point...

I understand that, but that's not exactly the point of my post, Nando's saying that the majority or casual gamer market buys games that are usually short and time-wasting, while we are used to long[er] games as gamers, However Nathaneal is saying that 50 hours is too long for a game, and 10-20 hours is good, which wasn't exactly Nando's point.

I see. so you're just demonstrating the different tiers then? Nathanael is a more "casual" gamer while you are more "hardcore"? To the casual gamer, 50+ hours of story is a pretty substantial investment of time.

Well, yes and no. For the casual gamer we're talking about short and sweet games that sell for little and for the most part are unseen on consoles, and when they are on consoles they usually cost more than they would on a mobile phone. For instance, someone like me would be able to play through something like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid, long games that require time and attention and have long cut scenes and are very story oriented, while a casual gamer from this generation might only be able to play a game like Call of Duty, Cut the Rope, or Angry Birds, one where it doesn't require much time and attention, and the story is thin and simple so as not to divert or delay the gameplay and in the long run can be ignored or skipped.

 

[Dingoo-fan 32]

most people are viewing this through the 50 hour per game gamer glasses. a lot of kids and gamers never liked those types of games but "dedicated gaming" devices were the way to go if you wanted to play any games.

Agree. 50 hours for a game is quite long. And boring. 10-20 hours maximum is OK.

Yeah, i get bored with 30 minutes of Final Fantasy 3, i prefer more short games

 

[prowler]

A 50 hour game can be made casual, just look at FFXIII.
I still love it though.

 

[Nathanaël]

I think 'casual gamer' is a difficult word.

But some people like puzzle games, for example. Logic games or action puzzle games. These games are usually 10-15 hours long, some even 30 hours.

The big point of this games is the replay value.

Not everybody likes epic RPGs all the time or platform game. Especially on a small handheld screen... In a bus or train... There are different sorts of games.

 

[machomuu]

I think 'casual gamer' is a difficult word.

But some people like puzzle games, for example. Logic games or action puzzle games. These games are usually 10-15 hours long, some even 30 hours.

The big point of this games is the replay value.

Not everybody likes epic RPGs all the time or platform game. Especially on a small handheld screen... In a bus or train... There are different sorts of games.

When did I say anything about RPGs?

 

[retKHAAAN]

I see. so you're just demonstrating the different tiers then? Nathanael is a more "casual" gamer while you are more "hardcore"? To the casual gamer, 50+ hours of story is a pretty substantial investment of time.

Well, yes and no. For the casual gamer we're talking about short and sweet games that sell for little and for the most part are unseen on consoles, and when they are on consoles they usually cost more than they would on a mobile phone. For instance, someone like me would be able to play through something like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid, long games that require time and attention and have long cut scenes and are very story oriented, while a casual gamer from this generation might only be able to play a game like Call of Duty, Cut the Rope, or Angry Birds, one where it doesn't require much time and attention, and the story is thin and simple so as not to divert or delay the gameplay and in the long run can be ignored or skipped.

and that is precisely the point. in a niche community like this, you're more likely to find people with the "free time" to play these games.

and if you've taken a look at the app store any time recently, you'll see games like FFIII and FF:Tactics up there. turn based games are a horrible example of handheld games as they are the easiest to make the transition, control wise, to a touch screen. it's only a matter of time before there are full re-releases of all the rest of the FF games along with full releases of Metal Gear, Dead Space, CoD, etc... (though there already are 3D releases for games from those franchises...)

 

[machomuu]

I see. so you're just demonstrating the different tiers then? Nathanael is a more "casual" gamer while you are more "hardcore"? To the casual gamer, 50+ hours of story is a pretty substantial investment of time.

Well, yes and no. For the casual gamer we're talking about short and sweet games that sell for little and for the most part are unseen on consoles, and when they are on consoles they usually cost more than they would on a mobile phone. For instance, someone like me would be able to play through something like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid, long games that require time and attention and have long cut scenes and are very story oriented, while a casual gamer from this generation might only be able to play a game like Call of Duty, Cut the Rope, or Angry Birds, one where it doesn't require much time and attention, and the story is thin and simple so as not to divert or delay the gameplay and in the long run can be ignored or skipped.

and that is precisely the point. in a niche community like this, you're more likely to find people with the "free time" to play these games.

and if you've taken a look at the app store any time recently, you'll see games like FFIII and FF:Tactics up there. turn based games are a horrible example of handheld games as they are the easiest to make the transition, control wise, to a touch screen. it's only a matter of time before there are full re-releases of all the rest of the FF games along with full releases of Metal Gear, Dead Space, CoD, etc... (though there already are 3D releases for games from those franchises...)

I don't think that's just it, if you've met the people who play these mobile games most of the time it's the fact that they like the games rather than a matter of time. It's more a interest than time, it just happens to be convenient and helps, getting someone who is a mobile/casual gamer to play something like MGS is hard and they'll easily think it's boring. Plus, I wouldn't say they're horrible examples of handheld games, handheld =/= mobile, and the JRPG market is slowly transitioning to the handheld market and doing a fine job at that.