Jump to content
rllmuk
Sign in to follow this  
labarte

PS4 Pro

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Shimmyhill said:

Really, seems to me consoles are gaining popularity if the figures carry on as they are currently heading and thats with the competition of tablets and phones. 

 

The trend forecasters generally show consoles as being less dominate than they were in the past, with mobile being where the primary future growth lies. On an Apples-to-Apples comparison, in mature markets like the UK and US, consoles aren't growing in popularity, they are at best static or in decline, we reached peak console last gen when the old people,et al got their waggle/touch/plastic instruments on, now they've all buggered off again, back to the usual demographics.

 

In terms of who actually plays on console, kids still seem interested to me, the vast majority of the time I see a console on TV, it's some young kid who plays on it.

  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I ever build a time machine on my way back to take out Hitler I'm going to pop one in Yahtzee before he makes that fucking meme.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sarlaccfood said:

Also try talking to a mobile dev about their market at the moment and I'm sure you won't be told it's all fucking lambos and lobsters.

It is if you just owned/sold King for more than Star Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the mobile market continues it's transition into being ruled by a tiny group of mega publishers but they're fucking king and supercell then it will start to decline horribly. The exploitative, gameplay free shit they sell will never, ever make consoles obsolete.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it is exploitative but then the console market is going more and more that way too. £40 for the base game followed by reams of DLC and pay to win currency. Fewer and fewer single player off-line games. Not to mention the fee you have to pay to play these games in the first place on top of the price of the title itself.

 

Look at Destiny, the base game that people paid top whack for at launch has been gimped to the point it's now useless, making it worthless on its own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destiny still convinced millions of people to pay £40 plus DLC money. Activision aren't going to shift that development focus and money to desperately searching for occasional people who spend £1000 on candy crush. If they thought that was ever going to be where the money is then they'd be moving there now.

 

Transitioning to tablets entirely kills the majority of game genres which are currently popular, and by extension the companies who produce those experiences. I just don't understand why the same people who have been bleating on about tablets destroying everything for the last five years are incapable of seeing that tablets aren't destroying everything. My kids play tablet games, but only occasionally and only when there's no "real games" available. My older son wants a PC more than anything, because everyone he watches on youtube is playing minecraft or something else on PC with mods. Several of his 9 year old friends play a modded pc version of minecraft, where the rest play COD or GTA. Tablets have diminished the market share of handheld consoles (though also not totally destroyed them like everyone said they were going to), but they're never taking the place of consoles.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what if you could just plug your tablet or phone into your TV and use a controller? In other words your tablet/phone becomes a console. 

 

I don't think console gaming is going anywhere either ie big budget AAA console games. But the devices we play them on won't necessarily be a black box under the TV like they are today.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to make that? Do you imagine that Apple and Google will start producing controllers and HDMI cables? Or that Sony and Microsoft will suddenly start pointlessly turning their consoles into tablets? Or will another company manage to defeat Apple, Google, Sony and Microsoft and combine all their products into one super product?

 

At what point do Activision and EA move to this new platform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Broker said:

Destiny still convinced millions of people to pay £40 plus DLC money. Activision aren't going to shift that development focus and money to desperately searching for occasional people who spend £1000 on candy crush. If they thought that was ever going to be where the money is then they'd be moving there now.

 

Did you see that recent "average spend" chart? Work out how much those games cost to make compared to Destinys $500 million. Hearthstone for example, had four developers, Destiny had 500.

 

Spend-Per-Player-video-games-620x477.png

 

I mean I think the trend in future will be getting people to pay thousands for "traditional games" as they've already signalled they're willing to do so via stuff like nostalgia Kickstarters, rather than transition entirely to mobile, but trying to make an argument that massive risky expensive productions are actually the safe bet seems self-defeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already happening dude. PS Now can be played on anything from a console, a PC or a just TV. HDMI cables cost buttons and can be picked up in any local supermarket. You can play mobile/tablet games with which ever controller you choose. 

 

The way I look at it is this; as the devices become more powerful they are better placed to take ports of higher end games. Why wouldn't publishers pursue what is just another revenue stream? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Did you see that recent "average spend" chart? Work out how much those games cost to make compared to Destinys $500 million. Hearthstone for example, had four developers, Destiny had 500.

 

Spend-Per-Player-video-games-620x477.png

 

I mean I think the trend in future will be getting people to pay thousands for "traditional games" as they've already signalled they're willing to do so via stuff like nostalgia Kickstarters, rather than transition entirely to mobile, but trying to make an argument that massive risky expensive productions are actually the safe bet seems self-defeating.

 

Hmm. 120k shoppers.

How many play fire age? how many of the fire age players play anything else?

 

i note that I presumably spend far more than $500/year, just over multiple games. The *average* player in the report that that comes from spends less on mobile games than PC/console games; and if the bulk of that average is whales playing fire age...

 

etc.

 

(you can make that chart and report say anything you want it to)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RubberJohnny said:

Did you see that recent "average spend" chart? Work out how much those games cost to make compared to Destinys $500 million.

 

Destiny didn't cost $500 million to make.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know, franchise, but it doesn't change the overall point, it's not like more was spent on Hearthstone (franchise) as opposed to Hearthstone (2014). I could have just gone with the staff numbers, since that's stronger anyway.

 

Anyway, the argument for Broker isn't tablets making gaming obsolete, it's that ageing gamers mean devs have to increase prices as the only way left to grow the industry. You get less new blood in not because people stop liking games, but because it becomes too expensive a hobby.

 

We've already had people bemoan console gaming becoming more expensive with stuff like PS4K and PSVR and saying they'd swear off games entirely, so then you end up with this downward spiral of getting more money from fewer people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gorf King said:

 

Destiny didn't cost $500 million to make.

 

Also, how many $100 million has been spent on marketing Fire Age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Did you see that recent "average spend" chart? Work out how much those games cost to make compared to Destinys $500 million. Hearthstone for example, had four developers, Destiny had 500.

 

Spend-Per-Player-video-games-620x477.png

This graph is wildly misleading. It isn't ARPU - average revenue per player. It's ARPPU - average revenue per paying player. The $550 figure for Game of War is basically meaningless because you have no idea how many players it's averaged over. There could be just one paying player and $550 could be total revenue, even. 

 

I've seen the (confidential) revenue reports for games like Game of War or Candy Crush and I'm not giving anything away by saying it's a lot. But these games aren't appealing to anything like the same audiences as console games do. One market doesn't take away from the other. There's close to zero overlap. They just don't compete. I mean, just consider, you started talking about appealing to kids -- freemium games have zerk interest in kids who cannot purchase IAPs.

 

Also, you assume these games are cheap to make. They aren't. Creating a freemium game that can convince whales to shell out thousands is very hard (which is why few have succeeded at it) and requires huge teams of analysts and devs. 

 

This entire line of argument is fatuous.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, DocG said:

But these games aren't appealing to anything like the same audiences as console games do. One market doesn't take away from the other. There's close to zero overlap.

 

Where did I say they were?

 

Quote

They just don't compete. I mean, just consider, you started talking about appealing to kids -- freemium games have zerk interest in kids who cannot purchase IAPs.

 

Arcade games don't care about kids who don't pay. Traditional games don't care about kids who can't afford consoles and games. This statement is meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DocG said:

This graph is wildly misleading. It isn't ARPU - average revenue per player. It's ARPPU - average revenue per paying player. The $550 figure for Game of War is basically meaningless because you have no idea how many players it's averaged over. There could be just one paying player and $550 could be total revenue, even. 

 

I've seen the (confidential) revenue reports for games like Game of War or Candy Crush and I'm not giving anything away by saying it's a lot. But these games aren't appealing to anything like the same audiences as console games do. One market doesn't take away from the other. There's close to zero overlap. They just don't compete. I mean, just consider, you started talking about appealing to kids -- freemium games have zerk interest in kids who cannot purchase IAPs.

 

Also, you assume these games are cheap to make. They aren't. Creating a freemium game that can convince whales to shell out thousands is very hard (which is why few have succeeded at it) and requires huge teams of analysts and devs. 

 

This entire line of argument is fatuous.

I was going to say, Game of War has to have tens of millions of users, an ARPU that high would make them one of the most profitable software companies in the world. As it stands they're still getting venture funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to stop watching that when Leadbetter kept pronouncing 2x as 'two ex' rather than two times.

 

'Two ex performance boost...' Etc.

 

Does anyone else really say that?

 

He probably wishes people a happy ex-mass.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/10/2016 at 4:47 PM, footle said:

 

Also, how many $100 million has been spent on marketing Fire Age?

I

 

This is is important. I recall reading that the profits for these huge mobile games aren't as much as you would think because of the need to constantly blanket market. Would be interesting to see those figures but I assume those don't exist in the public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the major mobile companies are publically traded, you can go look up their numbers if you want. Their profitability from a major hit is pretty impressive (Take GungHo for example, Puzzle and Dragons has dominated Japan for a while, they were making over 30% pure net profit because of that, something most traditional publishers come nowhere close to managing), the trick being becoming a major mobile hit in the first place ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.