Mobile Gaming Killed Portable Console Gaming.
Ive gotta say I have an iPhone 4s and, while it's great for phone gaming, it's nowhere near as good as gaming on a dedicated handheld. Once I get my vita in February I won't game at all on my iPhone. I bought GTA3 for the iPhone and it works pretty good I'll admit but I constantly wish I had buttons.
Same here I own an Xperia Ray. While I do have a great time with the games on many phone the quality of those titles are nowhere near a dedicated portable one. Also while I do have a ton of emulators they are almost impossible to play without physical buttons. I am also getting a Vita at launch. XperiaRay
IT'S. A. ****ING. PHONE. Jesus, why don't these Apple diehards get this? A PHONE is not a GAME CONSOLE. End of discussion.
I just had a long, tiresome PM discussion with a very unkind anti-handheld person that thinks I'm an idiot of the world for supporting gaming handhelds. I should have blocked and ignored a lot earlier than I did.
You should never reply to people who doesn't even have the decency to post his opinion for everyone to see. That being said the core will always buy a dedicated gaming console and as long as there is a sustainable market the product will not die but I do see it evolving in the future.
First of all, the 3DS and PSV are not dedicated handheld systems. They are devices focused on gaming. Smartphones cannot say that they are focused on gaming. That was not what they were built for and they never will be. Further, because Handheld gaming systems are focused on gaming, they have been built with community features that mirror their home console counterparts. These features, especially in the Vita, will never be on Smartphones. If they ever are, I wouldn't consider it a phone anymore. As for expenses related to the phone itself, I don't understand how people can say that a Vita costs them more. After all is said and done, a smartphone costs much more and requires a data plan . What does the Vita require of you? A memory card? How does that even compare?
To the pro-smartphone crowd that says "I can get a game for 99 cents, so why would I drop 40 dollars on a cartridge game" here is why: Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you got the best possible deal by getting your smartphone FREE with a two year contract. What the smartphone crowd conveniently ignores when they quote the one dollar price tag is that they are required to pay an extra 30 dollars per month (minimally) for a data plan to keep that smart phone going. That is a cost that a Vita/3DS owner DOESN'T incur if they own a normal cell phone. We'll consider the actual cost of the phone plans a wash/comparable. 30 dollars for a month for a year is 360 dollars, NOT including local and state cell phone taxes on that 30 dollars. Yes, you can use that data plan for things other than games, but it is REQUIRED to even keep the phone/get it free on many carriers and let's be honest having a smartphone without a data plan is pretty pointless. Some may argue that people may use their smartphone as their only internet and that would be an additional cost for the 3DS owner, but there are really few people who don't also prefer to browse on a big monitor at home. So, I'm already way ahead on my 3DS cost. "But wait, your games cost 40 bucks! Smart phones are way better! My games only cost a dollar!" For the sake of fairness let's ignore the quality of smart phone games and just focus on price. I have eight 3DS games, and no, I didn't pay 8*40=320 dollars for them. You see, I'm PATIENT and I don't get most of my games at release. Some of them I do, but some I don't. In fact, I got three of those games at full retail, and here is what I paid for the others by waiting for sales: 1) $23 2) $20 3) $15 4) $5 5) 5$ Game total: $188 Yeah, if you're patient for Xmas sales you get console games for five bucks that were full retail six months prior. This shouldn't be a surprise to smart shopper gamers here. So here's where we are at for totals for two years: Smartphone: $30 data X24 months = $720(not including taxes, and remember that two year contracts are frequently required to get the device free, so it has to be part of the cost comparison. Without the 24 months, you don't get it free.) 8 one dollar games = $8 Congrats on your one dollar games! (roll eyes) =$728 total 3DS: System: $250 (yes I bought at launch, and I'm trying to show the BEST CASE SCENARIO for the pro-smartphone crowd, note that I did get 20 free games with this, 10 of which are outdated, but the GBA games are, gameplay-wise, better than smartphone games) 8 games: $188 =$438 If I had waited until after the price break, that total would be 169+188=$357 or HALF of what a phone owner would pay. We're not including the cases required to carry both types of devices. So, yes, clearly I am an unbelievable financial moron for owning a 3DS. Note that my games are far more full featured than the smartphone games, which suits me as a gamer. Also note, that while you can do other things with that data plan on a smartphone, it is REQUIRED to operate it to be able to play games on it, so it should count as part of the start up cost, in my opinion. Please, flog me pro-smartphoners for my insolent running of the numbers and for not realizing how cheap "one dollar" games are! (PSSSSTTT...they're not REALLY a dollar. ;) )
You make a good point, but then theres the ipod touch arguement on top of that which doesn't have the data plans. --- As for this now stale arguement which keeps reappearing on N4G. You can't compare the two. One is aimed at gamers and provides in depth gaming experiences. The other is aimed at non-gamers those who only game on 10minute bus journeys. There's plenty of room for both to succeed and as you can see from the 3DS and i'm sure the Vita will follow suite, that handheld consoles are far from dead. I've got no problem with people liking their 79p-£7.99 games on their phone/ipod but to come out and say that handheld gaming is dead is just crazy. I just look forward to this old arguement dying away in the near future when people realise that the two are not the same
You're absolutely correct resistance, we SHOULDN'T be comparing the two. They are two different markets and they can both exist. Bubble for you. I'm not intending to continue this tired rhetoric, but as long as the pro-smartphone fanboys keep getting in my face and judging me just because I like different gaming experiences than them, I'm going to defend myself.
Very well said. The problem with most people today is that they are too blind to see their hand in front of their face. They think because the upfront price of a device is cheaper, they don't care about the repercussions afterward.
I really never said the games are better I defiantly never said that but there is a huge decline on mobile gaming because not as many people are into it anymore the point I'm making is less people want to buy a new hand held system when they already have a smart phone. You can disagree all you want but lately you can see for yourself by sales. Most people would rather just Play on a console then play a hand held, and they use smartphone games to pass the time and it's always on them. The economy has hurt a lot of people and you may not be one of them but everyone I know and have talked to doesn't want to pay $50 for a vita game when they can get a console game for that much.
That makes sense, when you talk about a specific subset of gamers: people that own smartphones AND consoles at home. And those people own BOTH and have been "hurt by the economy"? That seems like an awful lot of disposable income for people who have been "hurt by the economy". When I think of "hurt by the economy" I think of people losing their mortgages, not "ONLY being able to afford a smartphone AND a console". I own ONE console: my handheld. And yet the smartphone crowd seems to think that handhelds should disappear? Why does the (owns smartphone and console) group get to drive the market yet the (just owns handheld) group should be required to disappear? Last I checked, 4 million people bought a 3DS so far. That doesn't seem like a small market to me. It may not be the BIGGEST market, but its still substantial. Why do we keep interpreting industry trends as the "biggest" market is the only one that matters? A market is a market. I'm pretty sure many gamers don't like or play Nintendogs, but it has a MARKET, so Nintendo makes it because that market buys it. That's like saying that we should get rid of Ferrari's because the market for them is small. Well, there is still a market. The problem here is that many pro-smartphone people do not see the "multiple markets"" that resistance is talking about and they are judging MY market as unworthy, simply because they don't fall into that category. It is a genuine lack of empathy for other gamers that is driving their opinions. @dizzy: Every time you post an article like that, you are going to get that response here. Don't bother coming to the 3DS or Vita sections if you don't want to hear our opinions on that. You're welcome to be here, but you're not going to be agreed with.
Woah I never said I didn't want your opinions I love your guys opinions, I myself own a DS and am planning on getting the Vita, but it seems now a days there are many more casual gamers then hardcore hand held gamers, and the DS sold 4 million in 9 months and that's because of the price drop, the Vita is hurting in Japan that's obvious, and really who doesn't have a smart phone? I understand what you guys are saying and I don't want the hand held market to die I'm not like pro iPhone and saying the iPhone is better and to get rid of the hand helds, I love hand helds and Pokemon is one of my favorite series ever, I'm just saying in general. And what your saying is true about low income people having an Xbox but I know a lot of people on low income who do have an Xbox and/or an iPod touch.
And like I said in the article, hardcore gamers will disagree but for the casual gamer it's different
From a SALES and demographic point of view? Yes. The iPhone/Tablets etc. is slowly taking over that market because developers for those games can make cheaper games with little to no overhead and cost...which translates to larger margins for them. From a quality standpoint? No. Without dedicated controls, Smartphones/Tablets have not caught up with the quality of dedicated hand held gaming...or the scope of those games. However, Smartphone gaming at this point is not being directed towards the hardcore/core market as it is more focusing on the average consumer. The reality is the average consumers makes up most of the buying for mobile platforms as seen in recent sales/demographic data over the past 2+ years when comparing both markets. There is room for both markets, you will just begin to see mobile dedicated gaming in the future start to resemble a Smartphone more and more as time passes.
I agree with the comments saying both markets can coexist. The Nokia snake playing commuters who have moved to smartphones are happy with their 99c games. While others want more immersive gameplay, beyond increasing the difficulty of the reptition...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.