Print 63 comment(s) - last by shortylickens.. on Mar 17 at 8:03 PM

Peter Vesterbacka says console games are too expensive at $40 or $50 per game, and take too long and too much work to upgrade

Angry Birds is easily one of the most popular games on the mobile market today, but the game's popularity isn't the only thing swelling these days. The maker of Angry Birds has recently announced that console games are "dying" in favor of mobile games. 

Angry Birds has been wildly successful since its release in December 2009 for Apple's iOS. With over 200 levels, special holiday editions and a low price of only 99 cents, consumers have been receptive to the game's witty and addictive themes. In fact, the game has just passed 100 million downloads, and Rovio Mobile, the computer game developer that created Angry Birds, recently announced $42 million in new funding. 

With all this success, Peter Vesterbacka, CEO of Rovio Mobile, predicted the end times of console gaming at a panel at the South by Southwest Interactive conference in Austin. According to Vesterbacka, traditional console games are much too expensive at $40 or $50 per game, and are "difficult to upgrade" while mobile games are easier to develop and release. 

But some have argued that mobile games are more casual while console games provide a more substantial gaming experience with cutting-edge technology and extensive plots. Even Tero Ojanpera, the panel member from Nokia, said console's still had a place in the gaming industry.
In response, Vesterbacka says he is tired of people calling mobile games "casual games," and that gamers can be just as addicted and involved in Angry Birds as any console game. He even mentioned a time when he saw an Angry Birds player throw their phone across the room in frustration when they could not complete a level. 

While Vesterbacka has admitted that no one has really figured out the mobile gaming business model quite yet, he believes Angry Birds has proved that there is plenty of potential opportunity in the business, and Rovio's secret to success is to experiment. It is important, says Vesterbacka, that Rovio does not get too comfortable with any specific business model in order to stay fresh and on top of its game. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By kleinma on 3/14/2011 10:08:10 AM , Rating: 5
I'll take my 360 any day over angry birds, which got old in about 10 minutes for me. One thing mobile gaming doesn't have down at all compared to consoles is multiplayer, which is how the vast majority of players spend their console gaming time. Maybe Rovio should try to make a multiplayer game or a game with actual AI. I don't care how many zombies there are out there playing angry birds, it will get old and in a year no one will play it at all.

RE: sorry
By Brandon Hill on 3/14/2011 10:20:56 AM , Rating: 3
It's been the complete opposite for me. I got Donkey Kong Country Returns, Gran Turismo 5, and Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit.

I've chalked up maybe 30 mins in GT5 and a solid 30 mins in DKCR. I haven't even cracked open the seal on Hot Pursuit. However, I've racked up hours and hours and hours playing Angry Birds and Angry Birds Seasons (Christmas, Valentine's Day, and now St. Patrick's Day).

As crazy as it sounds, I enjoy those two 99 cent games more than the console games.

RE: sorry
By Brandon Hill on 3/14/2011 10:24:54 AM , Rating: 1
Forgot to add, I got the console games for Christmas.

RE: sorry
By GuinnessKMF on 3/14/2011 10:57:45 AM , Rating: 5
All I got out of your post was that you spent a lot of time on the toilet over the holiday season.

Simple mechanics can be a lot of fun and it doesn't require some crazy graphics/plot/controls to be entertained, but sometimes that extra depth is desired, anyone who claims something as "dying" is just shortsighted, there's always those who want difference experiences.

RE: sorry
By Brandon Hill on 3/14/2011 11:01:59 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, I'm not personally saying that the console market is dying, just that I understand why the "casual" smartphone market is growing.

RE: sorry
By Mitch101 on 3/14/2011 11:14:10 AM , Rating: 3
Is it dying or are people willing to throw $0.99 away but have to think about a $49.99 purchase.

RE: sorry
By kleinma on 3/14/2011 11:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
I have probably logged more hours playing trials HD, bomber man, and several other $5-15 xbox live arcade titles than the $50-60 disc based games. consoles are not all about expensive games anymore. I save my disc games for the ones that I know I will really enjoy (like GTA4, Red Dead, Resident Evil 5). Otherwise for the disc games that I know I will like but not love, I wait it out and buy them when they are down to 25-30 bucks.

RE: sorry
By MrBlastman on 3/14/2011 1:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
I think you're onto something.

I'm not a console gamer at all, but I can give my PC gaming perspective. While my bread and butter gaming time is Team Fortress 2, which I spend the most with--I bought it when it was beta along with Portal about three years ago, I find I'm very, very reluctant to spend 50 dollars on a game anymore. In fact, I just beat System Shock for the first time (the _first_ system shock, System Shock 2 is next) last week--what a blast, I must add, even if it was in Dosbox.

I've spent far more time, lately, actually, playing games I spent less than 20 dollars on. NOW, to be fair, all of the games I'm going to list were 40-50 bucks when they first came out, however, with a baby in the house, I can't afford to pay for games when they're new.

Stalker, Shadow of Chernobyl (with the complete mod)--5.00 on Steam.
Arx Fatalis (amazing game), I think I paid 5-10.00 on Steam.
Mass Effect (can't play the second one, the FOV is a stupid 70 that consoles use), I paid 20.00 for on Steam.
Sim City 4 (yes, I get the urge to build sometimes), 5.00 on Steam.
Fallout 3 (close to beating), 20.00 retail.
Rise of Flight, 30.00 retail--BUT, bought all the planes when they went on sale for 50% off.

Seeing a pattern yet? All of these games I bought on sale on Steam. They're all great games and I've beat them all--I just buy them when Steam has it's semi-annual sales and play them later, at a deep discount. In fact, the one game I paid full price for--Dragon Age, I still haven't beaten. I also have StarCraft 2, but, alas, I have no time to play it due to my baby waking up unpredictably--it's hard to pause an RTS game when online.

Then, there are some other budget titles I've bought, such as Braid, Trine and Bionic Commando Reloaded (awesome) that I still have yet to beat, but, all of which I spent less than 5 bucks apiece on.

So, generally, for 50 or 60 bucks, with the way I buy games, I usually can get 6 - 12 games easy for the same amount of money I would spend on one new title.

Then you have to factor in all the old games I'm still playing, like Falcon 4.0, System Shock, X3, EECH Enemy Engaged, DCS: Black Shark etc., Wing Commander (YES, people _still_ play it), X-Wing Alliance (mods for X-Wing and Tie Fighter), Ultima 6/7, and... Freespace 2 (most modded old game there is and looks quite current now).

So, no, gaming is not "dead" or "dying" on modern systems such as Consoles -or- the PC. What has changed is our method for buying these games. Face it, the economy is down and people don't want to spend so much money, so services such as Steam have been an amazing avenue that we now procure our hobby through. It saves us incredible amounts of money to get the same experience.

Now, to be fair, these bigger titles need revenue and since Steam does not disclose as they are private, I have no idea how much money flows through them. However, I'd have to wager that these developers still need people to buy on day one to remain profitable. So, what we might possibly see is fewer A-List titles, or, more titles that focus on gameplay than graphics (because really, who cares about a game that just looks pretty but you can't do anything with it--that'd be like dating a hot woman that a. Never talked and b. Never, ever put out--who'd want that, it would get old, fast).

I seriously think the Angry Birds guy needs to re-assess himself. I think handheld gaming has its place, but, at least in its current state, can't hope to completely replace harder-core gaming. Handheld gaming is what it is, casual gaming for the time being.

RE: sorry
By Alexstarfire on 3/14/2011 2:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
I can understand it too for phone and mobile devices, but when I'm at home I'm not interested in a casual game. Since a console is generally confined to one location, since you can't play it mobile, it doesn't make much sense to have these casual type games on there. Sure, every console has some of these games but it'd be silly to have a console dedicated to them. Mobile devices, on the other hand, are just about the opposite. Doesn't make sense to have a lot of serious games.

RE: sorry
By spread on 3/14/2011 10:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
I've racked up hours and hours and hours playing Angry Birds and Angry Birds Seasons (Christmas, Valentine's Day, and now St. Patrick's Day).

Wow. That's a lot of Angry Birds. Sounds like more of an addiction, or you must have a very boring day.

RE: sorry
By Drag0nFire on 3/14/2011 10:40:41 AM , Rating: 2
Is it really because you enjoy the 99 cent games more, or is it just more convenient than your PS3?

I've played through many cheap iOS games, probably spent a few hours on each. Though I've enjoyed many of them, I've mostly played them for the convenience. It's easy to play them on the go while waiting for a bus or taking the train to work.

I am consistently amazed with what the iOS developers can do with a limited price/revenue, but given a choice between an iOS game or a pc game, I'll choose the pc game almost every time.

RE: sorry
By Mitch101 on 3/14/2011 11:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
You bring up a good point I cant game as easily with my XBOX when mobile as I can with a Phone or Tablet. Or as people in my office seem to do on the toilet. I know this because the volume is accidentally up and I can distinguish it over your clearing your throat trying to cover up that your playing a game and didn't realize the sound was on.

RE: sorry
By nikon133 on 3/14/2011 3:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
That is definitely strong factor. I never play games on phone while at home, but do play while, for example, shopping - or, to be more accurate, wait for my lady to shop. Even if I am really getting, well, over-saturated with Angry Birds and handful of other same mechanics games, they are much better fun than browsing n-th boutique shelves.

But once I am at home, it is PS3 and PC exclusively, much as gaming is concerned. Big games with good stories can really suck me in and make me thinking about the game even after I have finished playing, be it for the day or for good. Good game can offer so much to tickle one's imagination. What can AB offer? Same sort of repeated control movement throughout the whole game, no story, no imagination. Once I stop playing, I'm hardly aware I was playing it at all. Birds are angry at pigs and go Kamikaze? Really? That is future of gaming???

RE: sorry
By Breakfast Susej on 3/14/2011 10:42:15 AM , Rating: 5
I wonder more and more as I read opinions as well as observe my own behavior if it is not a facet of how the mind's ability to process information is changing in the face of the internet.

When I was younger I really enjoyed delving into these long and drawn out games, playing through them in multiple ways. Now I am lucky if I can focus my attention on them for 30 minutes at a time.

I buy games on steam that I play a grand total of an hour of and never finish on a regular basis.

Is it a wider symptom of so many people of my generation having their attention span modified by processing all of their information online(as I have seen theorized by other sources.) Or is it just the nature of getting older and finding it harder to immerse oneself in these sorts of pass-times?

I don't really know the answer, maybe it's a combination of both. Maybe it's something else all together that I fail to see.

RE: sorry
By Mitch101 on 3/14/2011 11:27:21 AM , Rating: 2
Are most of those one hour games just rehashes of the same games we played over an over. I suspect that is my issue with many first person shooters. New Maps and Guns = new first person shooter = 1 hour gameplay before moving on.

RE: sorry
By TSS on 3/14/2011 12:30:57 PM , Rating: 3
It's not attention span. It's the games. I'm a hardcore gamer, i've spent countless hours in games. Last thing i did was beeing 36 of the world on the leaderboards in bullitstorm on skillshots.

But even so i have only completed 1 full run in multiplayer. Because the game has a completly random and automated matchmaking system. Even though you can set preferences and have a level, i get matched up with lvl 1's and 3's and so on. Rarely do i see another 40+ (and i'm 60).

"so go play with friends" people say. OK. my 3 real life friends don't like chaotic FPS games like bullitstorm, i do. So i'd play with online friends right? But because of the random match making system, i don't actually meet other hardcore gamers to add to my friends list.

There are no dedicated servers, so players host. And even when you host, you cannot kick or admin anything. So if there's somebody deliberatly shooting the team challanges and you can't complete a round, you can't do anything about it.

I had so much fun in Q3, UT and CS. Just boot up the game, look in the list for a low ping, high player count server, double click and 10 seconds later you'd be playing with likeminded people and admins who'd watch over the server. As long as you obeyed the rules you had a blast. And, if you made it to the top of the scoreboard you where the bomb.

going by the Bad Company 2 example i boot up the game, server browser glitches, have to patch, browser works but doesn't display ping (so we'll work on names then), connect to server, loading ages, spawn, parachute spawn bug, die, respawn, move to a ledge for sniping (and i actually can snipe in games), kick off the other 7 snipers who aren't actually hitting anything but shooting alot of bullits, watch as the others refuse to run up to the point unless it means in a straight into enemy fire, zoom in on a target only to watch it duck as mortars rain on my head. Upon respawn i get headshotted by a cheater, with no admin in sight.

I'll stop here because i can honestly keep typing for 3 whole days explaning exactly what's wrong with games. This entire post has been retyped 3 times from much longer versions, all equally correct. It's the games, 1000% sure.

The only thing i wonder now is how big the tragedy needs to before people will get it.

RE: sorry
By kleinma on 3/14/2011 2:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
It is also a matter of community. Back when I used to play endless hours of Counter Strike (and CS source when it came out) we had our own server and a strong community of at least 50-60 people who were always playing (plus the dozens of randoms). So much that we used to have people waiting like an hour for a spot to open up to get into the server (lucky for us admins we had slot reservations). We enojoyed playing so much because of the people we were playing with. I didn't even ever know any of them personally, just cool people who were into the same game.

Even with the improvements to xbox with the party system, it is still cumbersome to try to have that same experience. So when I play COD black ops, I have to hope and pray I get decent people on my team who try to play the game as a team, and not a bunch of numb nut idiot kids who are just trying to rack up stupid points and rewards. I play for the enjoyment of playing, not for the end game.

I think the xbox live player matching system needs try to group people of similar ages somehow, that would likely improve the online experience.

RE: sorry
By Breakfast Susej on 3/14/2011 3:26:05 PM , Rating: 3
Well you know, I'd like to think it's the games too, I mean I used to be just as into it as you. I still remember playing quake 1 death-match alpha test for the first time on my 486 over a 14.4 modem with a friend.

I played all the FPS's of the day, Quake, Quake2, Quake3, UT, was pretty good at them too. I remember that feeling when you got on a roll and all was right with the world and it felt like you were on fire, you just couldn't be stopped and you topped the scoreboard and it felt awesome. There was always the casual good hearted trash talk among the lan buddies.

Man so many good memories from the lan days. Gaming till 3, 4, 5am. Downing cases of caffeine, pigging out on pizza, taking breaks to head over to the living room and watch whatever movie was on and joke around... Good times.

But now it just isn't the same. First off I game till like 9pm and feel like a whiny old man and want to go to bed. And well, who LAN's anymore?

I had a talk with a friend from high-school the other day and I came to the realization we had become those crusty old gamers we used to laugh at, when we were death-matching it up in quake and they were talking about their atari.

I'd like to think it's the games, but man, I don't know for sure.

RE: sorry
By just4U on 3/14/2011 10:46:18 AM , Rating: 2
I face palmed with your comment Brandon.. Or rather face desked.. All the while thinking soooo.. what does that do for computer gaming.

I understand convienence and mobile games are kinda on the go but for them to say that console gaming is dead in comparison to mobile games is just a shake your head type deal.. it's silly.

RE: sorry
By Brandon Hill on 3/14/2011 11:00:50 AM , Rating: 3
I think it relates to a few comments up above (regarding our brains' migrating to a web-based instant gratification model). I rarely even boot up my PS3 anymore. The only time I really do anymore is if my wife and I want to watch a Blu-ray movie.

So that means that by the time I'm actually in the mood to play a PS3 game, I put the disc in and get ready to play and BAM -- a system update has to be downloaded (since I rarely boot it fault really). Grr, OK, I'll wait on this damn thing to finish. Start the game -- BAM an update has been found for your software.

Then I start playing, and I find myself not really interested in the experience any more. I don't know why because I used to be a HUGE PC gamer (I wasted way too much time throwing spinning discs in Tribes and Tribes 2... SHAZBOT!) and probably the most time I've spent wasting hours on console games previous to Angry Birds was with Saint's Row and Grand Theft Auto 4.

Maybe I'm just getting older, maybe it's an instant gratification thing, but I find it much more relaxing and "fun" to just lounge around and play Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, or Worms (SERIOUS time burner) on my iPhone in my free time.

RE: sorry
By just4U on 3/14/2011 8:19:02 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe it has to do with being older. Just has to do with interest and perhaps time constraints. I am in my 40s and I bought the PS3 for a select few games otherwise it's just a glorified dvd player. I do however, do a fair amount of PC gaming (again ... very specific titles)

I'd think the same would hold true for mobile gaming. You see people with a few minutes to spare (on a computer) and they load up a flash based game.. next logical step is for it to go mobile..

It's just really premature to put the nail in the coffin on Console (or even pc) gaming. These little games on mobile devices have been around for a dogs age.. they have their place and are a little bit more profitable since mobile devices have gotten better but that's about it.

RE: sorry
By chmilz on 3/14/2011 10:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
The real truth lies somewhere between the two previous posts.

Angry birds is a simple game, and easily playable for a few minutes here and there, amounting to hours over time. A console game is more limited, requiring the player to sit down and focus on it, which can be tough for the time strapped gamer.

However, no mobile game to date can compete with the AI, story, complexity, or immersion of a good console game. Not by a long shot. But the flip side is that console game cost $100M to make, while the app cost $5K.

In time, competition will deliver a great middle ground where you can get, on any platform, a great game for $10, or a fun mindless game for $1.

RE: sorry
By SkullOne on 3/14/2011 11:02:46 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree.

I don't have the time to play many of today's games. I make the time for certain ones but even then the game will take me 2 weeks to finish instead of two days.

I got married about 18 months ago and that killed a lot of my game time. Now she's pregnant which further hurts the little game time I have. We just bought our first house and we have some work to do there which means very little game time in future as I have a man cave to build. Once the kid arrives all bets are off if I get any game time at all.

This is why I enjoy things like Angry Birds. I can play a level or two here and there and allow myself a few moments of relaxation. I can stop the game whenever I want without losing the last 30 minutes of work. I don't see console gaming as dying but I clearly see the appeal of mobile gaming.

RE: sorry
By nafhan on 3/14/2011 11:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
I've also racked up hours with Angry Birds, but it's not because Angry Birds is an incredible paragon of gaming that some people seem to think it is. Rather, I'd say it's marginally fun, and I've got it with me all the time . More importantly, time spent playing cell phone games has mostly just kept me from being bored while I carpool/wait in line/etc. It's done nothing to my console/PC gaming time.

In other words, cell phone games are for filling a niche (a HUGE niche) that gaming hadn't gotten into before. There's no way they will move into console gaming territory without similarly expensive budgets and prices.

RE: sorry
By Aloonatic on 3/14/2011 11:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
I quite agree. It's like saying (a year after their release) that the huge increase in the number of tic-tacs eaten by people is a threat to the cooked dinner.

RE: sorry
By PrinceGaz on 3/14/2011 12:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
I've got it with me all the time ... In other words, cell phone games are for filling a niche (a HUGE niche) that gaming hadn't gotten into before

That's odd, because I thought Nintendo had been doing a pretty successful job of selling games (and other software) you could play anywhere on their portable devices long before smartphone game apps like Angry Birds came along.

RE: sorry
By Brandon Hill on 3/14/2011 12:32:25 PM , Rating: 3
Adults don't walk around with a PSP or DS in their pockets at all times. However, they do carry a smartphone 24-7.

RE: sorry
By nafhan on 3/14/2011 3:49:06 PM , Rating: 2

RE: sorry
By Hiawa23 on 3/14/2011 12:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
Games like angry Birds don't appeal to me. I would gladly take my PS3 Xbox 360 over anything mobile. I think they are 2 different markets at play when you compare consoles to mobile, so I am kind of surprised they are comparing the two. Mobile games should be cheaper as I thought they were meant to be easy to get into, short, & simple which to me is different than alot of console games. Maybe, that's just my thinking.

RE: sorry
By psonice on 3/14/2011 1:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
It comes down to the person. I haven't fired up any of my consoles in over 12 months. I've played lots of iphone games though. Difference is it's simply in my pocket, ready to go.. when I get home I've generally played a couple of games during the day and just don't feel the need to sit down for more.

One thing I've really learned (and this goes for nintendo's stuff too) is that the only important thing is that it's fun. Graphics and controllers and so on are a bonus, but if it's fun, that's all you need.

Oh, and you're wrong on multiplayer - games like angry birds have this 100% right. I don't play it myself (played crush the castle, and didn't particularly like the angry birds version) but I've seen a few people playing it in the office. It's oldschool style multiplayer, they compete on how many levels they've done with 3 stars. Instead of sitting alone infront of a screen, they're having a laugh with friends + colleagues over it. It's like the classic combination of mariokart, 4 controllers and a crate of beer, except without the beer :)

RE: sorry
By sleepeeg3 on 3/14/2011 7:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
This from a man who stole the idea for Angry Birds from Crush the Castle - a PC game.

RE: sorry
By ShaolinSoccer on 3/15/2011 12:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
There's a free pool game on the Android Market that lets you play against someone. It even has a chat room. That game has become addicting just because you can play against another human lol.

I don't care for either platform that much.
By spamreader1 on 3/14/2011 10:38:35 AM , Rating: 3
Give me a mouse and keyboard over consoles or mobile devices anyday. I see the market for all of them, console, pc's and mobile devices all have their niches, and markets, and they are not necissarily exclusive against each other. (I like they idea xbox has with some portability of xbox live stuff)

RE: I don't care for either platform that much.
By bug77 on 3/14/2011 11:32:47 AM , Rating: 2

Never understood why so many people pay for Angry Birds, with so many Crush the Castle clones available for free. I can see that it's cheap and I can understand convenience. Is that all?

By psonice on 3/14/2011 1:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good castle clone, easy to play without having to learn button combos or whatever. Crush the castle was a good game to begin with. There's a few billion people out there who never played the original. Add in some cute characters and funny sound effects and super low price, and it's easy to see why it's so successful.

Of course the rest of us who've seen crush the castle are left wondering what the fuss is about.

Define "mobile" vs "console"
By quiksilvr on 3/14/2011 10:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between the two will be harder to distinguish as time goes on. If the NGP is any indication, it may bring console quality games (graphics, depth, longevity, multiplayer, etc.) to the mobile world.

So I don't think that console gaming will "die". It will be assimilated into the mobile gaming environment.

By ShaolinSoccer on 3/15/2011 12:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
Every mobile phone company should have at LEAST one phone that is just like the Xperia Play.

Room for both
By Suntan on 3/14/2011 10:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
Just as the 30 minute sitcom hasn’t killed off my desire to indulge in a 2 hour movie every so often, there will continue to be room for longer (10+ hour) games alongside simple, phone based games.


RE: Room for both
By tng on 3/14/2011 1:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
+1 and well said.

I use some games on my phone to kill time while I am out and about, but don't really find myself playing them at home.

Game quality is must and I will look at a game for a long time before spending my money on it. Even at used prices, I want allot of uses out of my games games before I move on.

Ignoring Reality
By DtTall on 3/14/2011 11:06:31 AM , Rating: 2
People act like these small games are something new. PopCap and sites like it have been around for a long time. They fill a niche for entry level gamers, serve as a reprieve for hardcore gamers, and are fun (just like I enjoy playing some games on Sega Genesis or Nintendo).

I actually view these smaller games as expanding the market of good games while shrinking the market for stupid bad console games (namely almost anything named after a movie).

The Kinect sold like crazy. The Wii flew off the shelves. The Halo series continues to bring in large amounts of money as do a number of other quality series (Assassins Creed or Mario anything for instance). And these provide a great multi-player experience.

I'm not saying there is no room for him and those type of games (as I said, they can be great fun) but I don't buy into the idea that they are eliminating console games just because they are higher quality and more expensive. As far as I can tell Saturn and Chrysler didn't kill Mercedes, Lexus, or Audi.

RE: Ignoring Reality
By Breakfast Susej on 3/14/2011 11:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
One thing that also may be overlooked in the matter is the reality of actually creating new audiences to gaming. I would offer that many of the people playing games like angry birds have never, and would never sit down in front of a console in the first place.

Much like facebook making "gamers" out of people who you wouldn't ever look at and say, "that person is a gamer". It can be studied with phenomenons like World of Warcraft, which exploded in popularity right around the time it changed to target a more mainstream audience.

None of it necessarily means as you say, that the audiences for the previous mediums have gone anywhere. They are still there, playing their console games, their pc games, etc. It is simply that a new market has been tapped.

As you say, casual games were indeed always there, popcap games etc. What wasn't there was something with a massive user base like the android marketplace and the apple app store to push those casual games out so effortlessly as there is now.

To sum it up, I would agree that neither console, or PC games are going, nor do they have to be going away for casual games like angry birds to have their own marketplace.

Games... Good; Platform... Bad
By Aikouka on 3/14/2011 11:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
I don't mind the games in the mobile sector right now... I actually rather enjoy some of them (albeit I never got into Angry Birds). My problem is with the mobile operating systems and how none of them really seem to acknowledge their gaming aspect and support it.

The biggest aspect of this problem is the inability to transfer saves between devices. I purchased an iPad as a complement to my iPhone, and quickly found out that even if I was using the same app on the two devices, auxiliary files (such as saves) were not transferred between the two. The only way to do this (on Android as well) is to manually go into your phone, get the save files and copy them over.

I can't really say that just because the system isn't user-friendly that it won't be able to become popular. I mean... who has ever tried to use the same XBOX 360 profile on more than one 360? If you have, I think you'll know what I mean about not being user-friendly and still being popular ;).

Another issue that I have is more ethical and I direct it at developers like Rovio. Why is it that Angry Birds for the iOS costs 99 cents, but Angry Birds HD (!!) for the iPad costs $4.99? Do bigger sprites and a bit of extra coding really equate to needing to charge ~5x as much?

RE: Games... Good; Platform... Bad
By RamarC on 3/14/2011 1:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
frankly, mr.angry.bird can't say jack since it's doubtful it will ever approach the $100M in sales a top console game can make on its release day!

By Flunk on 3/14/2011 10:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think this is preitty short-sighted. If you make casual games (like Angry Birds) of course you're going to look at them more than more hardcore games. It doesn't mean that other people aren't playing or developing them. I agree that mobile games don't have to be casual but saying that while developing games like Angry Birds is a total load. That game is the definition of casual, you can sit down for a few minutes, play it and then quit.

PC games, move over.
By zero2dash on 3/14/2011 10:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
So now console games are in the "dying" section with the PC games. Got it. LULZ

Yeah, sorry, I don't think I'm going to give up anything on Steam, 360/Live, or Ps3/PSN in favor of something ad supported that runs sluggish on my phone like Angry Birds. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

Angry Birds is great for wasting 10 minutes on the can. Other than

Too time-consuming
By BernardP on 3/14/2011 10:43:19 AM , Rating: 2
One thing about the trend in console and PC games is that they are becoming too time-consuming.

It's not all gamers who can involve themselves in a game to the point where it's almost a second job.

It's not all gamers who want to play a game online with other players, considering the obligations it entails.

Many people just want to play a good game at their own rhythm. They don't want to spend a week mastering the controls. They don't want to be lost if they have to put the game aside for a week.

By Aloonatic on 3/14/2011 10:44:52 AM , Rating: 2
Console and mobile games offer something different and unique.

It's like comparing a TV show you watch on a little TV in your bedroom to a movie you watch on a big screen. They are both fine in their own right, so I'm not going to choose between the 2.

Same goes for games. Sometimes I like to have a quick game of angry birds while I wait for meetings and appointments, but that will never replace the console game experience once I get home.

This guy's comments seem to be more of a case of someone effectively just jumping up and down, waiving their arms in the air shouting "look at me, look at me", craving more of the attention that his somewhat one-dimensional (yet still fairly fun, don't get me wrong) game has granted him.

He might want to ask himself, if games like angry birds are so great and taking over the market, why are we still only talking about angry birds as being an example of a hit mobile game, well over a year since it hit the screens of the iPhone? Is it because there aren't many other examples perhaps?

Not so much
By nafhan on 3/14/2011 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
My opinion: mobile games may take some gaming time away from consoles, but not much. Cell phone games are going to:
-Let gamers play games more often
-Get "non-gamers" into gaming

People will be interested in console games as long as there are home entertainment centers. At some point, those games may run off a cell phone, but they will still be "console" games in the sense that they work best on a big screen, have high production values and great content, and cost significantly more than simple (yet fun) time wasters like Angry Birds.

Not a very impartial source
By euler007 on 3/14/2011 10:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
The guy just got 42M in venture capital. He needs a little more to buy a yacht and rent a dock in Monaco.

Sweeping generalizations.
By Breakfast Susej on 3/14/2011 11:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't it typical as of late for there to be a tendency to grand generalizations that something is dying in favor of something else? Be it physical media dying in favor of downloadable content. Or now as the case may be, full length games in favor of short handheld games.

It doesn't take much of an imagination at all to predict that if you have a massive existing customer base such as a smartphone platform, and that you then release something appealing to that customer base on said platform that you are going to garner a large number of sales. Still, console games sell in vast numbers as well, and PC games despite their long lamented death continue to sell, certainly well enough to keep making them.

I think it is entirely possible that there is room enough among the six billion plus of us humans for there to exist more than one form of entertainment, without said form of entertainment having to kill another. Perhaps it's just a facet of human nature for there to have to be a winner. I think a world with PC games, mobile games, and console games available to their respective audiences is fine with me.

By corduroygt on 3/14/2011 11:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
That's like saying non-copyright infringing youtube video is going to kill of movies and tv shows.

Simple gaming more desirable
By MartyLK on 3/14/2011 11:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
This shows that most ppl prefer a simple, casual game over the complexity of a console game. If the console industry applied this to their systems, sales likely would pick up. Making games complex and a pain in the ass to play is fun for the hardcore gamer, but leaves out the casual gamer who prefers simple, time-passing, gameplay.

Nintendo comes close to getting it right, but their games are more frustrating than fun to these simple-game loving players. In other words, most of these gamers like to pass time on an easy game rather than a hard or complex game.

By T2k on 3/14/2011 2:12:32 PM , Rating: 2 we don't have to put up more of these moronic cutscene-driven, dumbed-down-as-hell console ports that aimed at the regular half-retarded, skilless PoS console monkeys.

It's simplicity to please these retards - that's the key here. Booting up a machine is "too hard", learning basic moves or, God forbid, advanced tactics (RTS, FPS, anything) is "ohhhh, verrrrry haaaaard!" so let's move to consoles so we can have immediate gratification, no need to work for anything... now it's only $1 and I can play it on my phone? EVEN BETTER...!

My first PC was a 386, I remember how a well-written PC game supposed to look like, unfold - I can only hope consoles wil get eaten by mobiles so finally all the Activisons and 2Ks of the game industry will either finally disappear or go back to their roots and start writing games for the world's most advanced and supreme gaming platform: the PC.

As if...
By masamasa on 3/14/2011 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
Spoken like a true non-gamer. The iphone or android is hardly a gaming platform, other than winging birds across the screen to blow up pigs. Lousy controls, tiny interface, and like will never all it to become a true gaming platform. While it will still generate revenue through 'time killing' titles, that's all it will accomplish.

Like cartoons vs. films
By Scrith on 3/14/2011 5:30:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of like saying those 2-minute cartoons on TV are going to replace watching films in a movie theater...just a ridiculous statement about two forms of entertainment that are quite different.

But, yeah, I'm sure there were a lot of people in the 1950s who thought Bugs Bunny would replace Citizen Kane.

By mindless1 on 3/16/2011 12:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why are we giving this nitwit any news time?

Are we going to now air every controversial self serving statement any loon in the biz makes?

Let's hope not, let's hope we see *news*.

Not terribly thoughtful.
By shortylickens on 3/16/2011 9:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think it must be more fun to cry like Chicken Little than to actually analyze things.

Didnt PC gaming die 10 years ago because of the PS2?

Huh? No
By piroroadkill on 3/14/2011 10:39:20 AM , Rating: 1
I still don't like playing games on a small ass touch screen.

I need some controls seperate from the screen, and an ergonomic way to hold it.. Oh wait, that already exists.

Open Letter to DT Editor(s)
By MDGeek on 3/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Open Letter to DT Editor(s)
By MartyLK on 3/14/2011 1:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that really pleases me. I was actually swamped in an Apple forum, iLounge, by Apple haters who didn't like me saying I would not buy a Xoom over an iPad2.

What pleases me is the iPad2 blows the Xoom away in graphics performance and the Xoom is loaded with that "OMG! nVdida tech"....LMAO

Motorola has not had a decent product since the Razor so many years ago. The current stuff is, over-designed, over-priced, over-hyped and under-whelming. If any Motorola stuff were actually good, I would support it. But it isn't. And it isn't worth it to spend $800 on a 32GB Xoom over a less expensive 64GB iPad2, especially now that the iPad2 has shown to be the world champ.

Sucks to be an Apple hater now.

RE: Open Letter to DT Editor(s)
By kleinma on 3/14/2011 2:39:54 PM , Rating: 2
iPad2, now with more i

I mean really what the hell do we need to know about the iPad2?

Cameras? check
Faster CPU? check
Gyroscope? check
Thinner? check

article done.

RE: Open Letter to DT Editor(s)
By DNAgent on 3/14/2011 10:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
Don't let this one get away, DT! Send an offer letter NOW

By shortylickens on 3/17/2011 8:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well, aside from the Droid.
And the Droid 2.
And the other 4 or 5 phones they've had all the past 18 months.
Aside from all those they havent had a decent product.

"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki