5 ms·

I fully agree that the iPad will increasingly encroach on the console games market. That may sound crazy but hear me out. 1. Already the graphics on the iPad 2

by cletus 16y ago

I fully agree that the iPad will increasingly encroach on the console games market. That may sound crazy but hear me out. 1. Already the graphics on the iPad 2 are pretty good. I would argue they're sufficiently good and only getting better (with better software and successive generations of hardware); 2. 3D realism has I think overshot the mark. Nintendo has proven--and continues to proven--that you don't need the latest and greatest 3D engine to sell consoles and games. Remember too that many people are nostalgic about arcade games and systems from the 80s and 90s; 3. Increased realism in games has really blown out art costs. I would argue that art now constitutes the majority of even big budget titles. The more realistic games get the higher this cost. Improved tooling has mitigated this somewhat but the cost continues to rise. There is significant economic incentive for game producers to curtail art costs by developing on lower-spec platforms. 3. The iPad is a multi-purpose device so, ultimately, more people are likely to buy it or devices like it than consoles (IMHO). Console makers continue to stretch the capabilities of consoles (adding VoD services like Netflix, etc) but ultimately it's still a TV. The iPad is a computer (albeit one with limitations). This will however take time. I've been saying for the last year--and I continue to say--Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft should all be scared about the iPad.

MatthewPhillips 16y ago
Those big budget games you're talking about make a gagillion dollars every time they get released. The iPad will never touch that market because the controls aren't nearly as good.
- TillE 16y ago
  If Apple wanted to get serious about challenging console games, they could make their own Bluetooth gamepad and push out a small software update to support it. You could put the iPad on a table or hook up the output to a TV and play it like any console. All you need is the controller and a driver.
  - joebadmo 16y ago
    I don't know about this. Hook up a &500 iPad to power and to your TV and pair it with the bt gamepad every time you want to play a console game? As opposed to a <$300 device that's always hooked up to the TV and controllers? I'd say the Apple TV is a much better contender for this market. But still isn't really technically able to push the blow-out titles that the gp is talking about. Not even close, since both the iPad and ATV are on low power ARM processors, while modern high end consoles are basically full-fledged desktop PCs.
    - illumin8 16y ago
      Most people nowadays probably buy a $500 laptop and a $200-300 game console. What if you could replace both of those devices with a dockable iPad that runs around $600 ($500 for the iPad and $100 for the dock and controllers). Sure, it's not going to be as good as a $299 PS3, but it will be much better than the PS3 at things like email, browsing the web, and doing computer related functions. When you get home, drop it in the dock and watch Netflix, or play some games.
      - joebadmo 16y ago
        I don't think $100 is enough of a disparity to get the market we're talking about even vaguely interested. Especially since the titles we're talking about (I think we're talking about stuff like the Modern Warfare games) simply aren't feasible on an ARM proc yet.
        whatusername 16y ago
        How close is the ARM proc to running something like OnLive?
        joebadmo 16y ago
        That's a really interesting question, but I don't think Apple's going to be the company to take gaming in that direction. Their cloud services are pretty lackluster. I have an ATV, and I only ever use it for Netflix streaming.
kenjackson 16y ago
You missed the biggest reason... cost of games is much cheaper. Even the Wii, with lower end titles, still cost much more than iPad games. The big problem with the iPad is that it is not an enjoyable multiuser experience yet. Nothing beats having friends over and playing Madden on a big TV. This is one reason why I think PC gaming never really took off in a big way. Playing a game on a PC is basically an isolated experience (mitigated by online play).
- cletus 16y ago
  You raise two good points. As for the cost, they are cheaper but I don't necessarily see that as being structural. What I mean is that that there is that as capabilities expand, so will what producers can do with that platform. The cost will go up with this. This will, in part, be mitigated by increasing market size. Or possibly publishers will finally learn that if games are cheap people will buy more of them, a lesson that has been consistently proven true from Steam price cuts (where selling a game for $5 made more than the original IIRC). The second good point you make, which I missed, is the multi-user aspect of games like Madden. This is mainly because I've never been this way inclined. I haven't been much of a console gamer at all really. I'm more of a PC gamer that likes turn-based strategy games. But I have bought and played a plethora of "casual" games on my iPad (and now iPad 2). I see tablets as being fundamentally personal devices, not really something you play a game on with multiple people (unless they each have their own). Still I see a huge potential market for games like Madden where each person has their own tablet as a control. What about where the Apple TV (a future iteration) plays one view and each player has their own control so it looks like a real football game?
  - icefox 16y ago
    > What about where the Apple TV (a future iteration) plays one view and each player has their own control so it looks like a real football game? The other weekend I sat down and looking into a very similar question. My detailed "report" can be found here: https://github.com/icefox/tablet_tv_games https://github.com/icefox/tablet_tv_games Summary: There might be some killer idea out there, but it seemed you could always do better without the TV. Also that in person (like football) multiplayer or coop tablet games are an untapped market.
6ren 16y ago
Yes, disruption. Also OnLive http://www.onlive.com/ http://www.onlive.com/ While the iPad improves, consoles/PCs will also improve, but you nail it by questioning whether people want it enough to pay more for it (another wii-like example is the popularity of casual flash games); and that prices will increase due to art costs (absent unforeseen algorithmic generation techniques...), which would seem to be limited by cinematic quality. If so, when the iPad matches that, there will be no reason to get a console/PC for gaming (assuming HDMI & controller sockets).
- tibbon 16y ago
  As disruptive as onlive seems to be it's basically low latency vnc for gaming and where the iPad keeps breaking sale records, onlive is growing slowly. Unsure why it isn't taking off more
senko 16y ago
I would argue that art now constitutes the majority of even big budget titles. Big budget titles seem to spend the majority of their budget on marketing and promotion. I was astonished by ~40-50mm (development) vs ~200mm (marketing) figures for Modern Warfare 2 (http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/11/19/modern-warfare-2s-development-budget-40-50-million/ http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/11/19/modern-warfare-2...). Even if other titles' budgets aren't that skewed, it's still a huge ratio.
- cletus 16y ago
  Careful with marketing numbers. I believe they're a common way of essentially hiding profits. Hollywood studios do this sort of thing all the time. Before you can say they spent that much on marketing you need to know exactly how much money went to whom and for what.
scott_s 16y ago
Your point 2 acknowledges that Nintendo has a different strategy than Sony and Microsoft, but you included them in the list of companies to be scared. Points 1 and 3 could also be used to explain why Nintendo has sold so many DS and Wiis.

by cletus 16y ago

MatthewPhillips 16y ago

Those big budget games you're talking about make a gagillion dollars every time they get released. The iPad will never touch that market because the controls aren't nearly as good.

TillE 16y ago
If Apple wanted to get serious about challenging console games, they could make their own Bluetooth gamepad and push out a small software update to support it. You could put the iPad on a table or hook up the output to a TV and play it like any console. All you need is the controller and a driver.
- joebadmo 16y ago
  I don't know about this. Hook up a &500 iPad to power and to your TV and pair it with the bt gamepad every time you want to play a console game? As opposed to a <$300 device that's always hooked up to the TV and controllers? I'd say the Apple TV is a much better contender for this market. But still isn't really technically able to push the blow-out titles that the gp is talking about. Not even close, since both the iPad and ATV are on low power ARM processors, while modern high end consoles are basically full-fledged desktop PCs.
  - illumin8 16y ago
    Most people nowadays probably buy a $500 laptop and a $200-300 game console. What if you could replace both of those devices with a dockable iPad that runs around $600 ($500 for the iPad and $100 for the dock and controllers). Sure, it's not going to be as good as a $299 PS3, but it will be much better than the PS3 at things like email, browsing the web, and doing computer related functions. When you get home, drop it in the dock and watch Netflix, or play some games.
    - joebadmo 16y ago
      I don't think $100 is enough of a disparity to get the market we're talking about even vaguely interested. Especially since the titles we're talking about (I think we're talking about stuff like the Modern Warfare games) simply aren't feasible on an ARM proc yet.
      - whatusername 16y ago
        How close is the ARM proc to running something like OnLive?
        joebadmo 16y ago
        That's a really interesting question, but I don't think Apple's going to be the company to take gaming in that direction. Their cloud services are pretty lackluster. I have an ATV, and I only ever use it for Netflix streaming.

kenjackson 16y ago

You missed the biggest reason... cost of games is much cheaper. Even the Wii, with lower end titles, still cost much more than iPad games. The big problem with the iPad is that it is not an enjoyable multiuser experience yet. Nothing beats having friends over and playing Madden on a big TV. This is one reason why I think PC gaming never really took off in a big way. Playing a game on a PC is basically an isolated experience (mitigated by online play).

cletus 16y ago
You raise two good points. As for the cost, they are cheaper but I don't necessarily see that as being structural. What I mean is that that there is that as capabilities expand, so will what producers can do with that platform. The cost will go up with this. This will, in part, be mitigated by increasing market size. Or possibly publishers will finally learn that if games are cheap people will buy more of them, a lesson that has been consistently proven true from Steam price cuts (where selling a game for $5 made more than the original IIRC). The second good point you make, which I missed, is the multi-user aspect of games like Madden. This is mainly because I've never been this way inclined. I haven't been much of a console gamer at all really. I'm more of a PC gamer that likes turn-based strategy games. But I have bought and played a plethora of "casual" games on my iPad (and now iPad 2). I see tablets as being fundamentally personal devices, not really something you play a game on with multiple people (unless they each have their own). Still I see a huge potential market for games like Madden where each person has their own tablet as a control. What about where the Apple TV (a future iteration) plays one view and each player has their own control so it looks like a real football game?
- icefox 16y ago
  > What about where the Apple TV (a future iteration) plays one view and each player has their own control so it looks like a real football game? The other weekend I sat down and looking into a very similar question. My detailed "report" can be found here: https://github.com/icefox/tablet_tv_games https://github.com/icefox/tablet_tv_games Summary: There might be some killer idea out there, but it seemed you could always do better without the TV. Also that in person (like football) multiplayer or coop tablet games are an untapped market.

6ren 16y ago

Yes, disruption. Also OnLive http://www.onlive.com/ http://www.onlive.com/ While the iPad improves, consoles/PCs will also improve, but you nail it by questioning whether people want it enough to pay more for it (another wii-like example is the popularity of casual flash games); and that prices will increase due to art costs (absent unforeseen algorithmic generation techniques...), which would seem to be limited by cinematic quality. If so, when the iPad matches that, there will be no reason to get a console/PC for gaming (assuming HDMI & controller sockets).

tibbon 16y ago
As disruptive as onlive seems to be it's basically low latency vnc for gaming and where the iPad keeps breaking sale records, onlive is growing slowly. Unsure why it isn't taking off more

senko 16y ago

I would argue that art now constitutes the majority of even big budget titles. Big budget titles seem to spend the majority of their budget on marketing and promotion. I was astonished by ~40-50mm (development) vs ~200mm (marketing) figures for Modern Warfare 2 (http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/11/19/modern-warfare-2s-development-budget-40-50-million/ http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/11/19/modern-warfare-2...). Even if other titles' budgets aren't that skewed, it's still a huge ratio.

cletus 16y ago
Careful with marketing numbers. I believe they're a common way of essentially hiding profits. Hollywood studios do this sort of thing all the time. Before you can say they spent that much on marketing you need to know exactly how much money went to whom and for what.

scott_s 16y ago

Your point 2 acknowledges that Nintendo has a different strategy than Sony and Microsoft, but you included them in the list of companies to be scared. Points 1 and 3 could also be used to explain why Nintendo has sold so many DS and Wiis.