Cellphone Gaming Market Lacks Pull 54
The Washington Post reports that, despite the best wishes of executives, the cellphone market has not yet taken off the way companies like Jamdat may have hoped for. From the article: "McAteer said the phone interface that consumers access when downloading games -- which usually lists only game titles -- is one of the biggest reasons behind the slow growth. As a result, the games that tend to sell best are those with instant name recognition among consumers, such as Pac-Man or Tetris"
market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got news for the game makers for the cell phone industry. Your market is probably close to saturated at 3%. Playing games on cell phones is a diversion, not an avocation. Users and potential buyers of games comprise a tiny fraction of the cell-phone audience. Almost any game at all, especially simple ones, will do to kill that 10 minutes wait at the train station. Anything more than a click away to add to the existing suite of games with the phone is no temptation.
I think the cell phone industry greatly overestimates any appetite for the cell phone to be the ultimate phone, pda, gaming machine, pc, soda fountain, reference, ad nauseum. Our wallets are finite (well, mine is), and we're not going to pay and spend time managing a suite of games to play on a cell phone where
Maybe the strategy is to find the endpoint of the consuming public's collective appetite for pay-for gaming on cell phones. I think they're close.
Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:4, Insightful)
"battery life sucked up by games subtracts from cell phone availability"
I use my phone for playing games, and I since I charge my phone every day, I don't really notice the battery life running out as being a problem. I realize I'm not everyone, but it can be done.
Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:2)
Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:3, Informative)
Other factors (Score:2)
* A cell phone has a lousy interface for gaming.
* The LCD screens on most phones have horribly high latency, making action games hard to play.
* The low horsepower of most phones prevent development of complex games.
I admit, I used to be big on cell phone games when I got my first phone that supported them. But after getting burned with a half-dozen asstastic titles, I realized that a PDA or a Gameboy would be far better for gaming, and broke the habit. The only pe
Re:Other factors (Score:1)
This is a very broad generalisation. Obviously very demanding twitch-based games are out of bounds, but many other kinds of games aren't adversely affected at all. Every control scheme has limited scope. I can't play a fighting game on my PC keyboard, or most flavours of RTS with a joypad.
"The LCD screens on most phones have horribly high latency, making action games hard to play."
This may have been an issue three of four years ago. Virtually any phone you buy
Re:Other factors (Score:1)
You need practice. The keyboard is second only to the arcade stick when it comes to controlling fighting games.
Re:Other factors (Score:2)
Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:2)
Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:2)
They may be bigger in certain specific markets than they are in the US, but I think you're probably overestimating their popularity in Europe and Asia as a whole. I would like
Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:2)
They should put up the same games in flash as adverts for people to play and get used to, before they try downloa
Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) (Score:1)
Not even the problem, IMO. I can't find a game as good as one of my favorite Atari 2600 games on my cellphone, although it has the screen resolution, color depth and processing power to play such games. But if I had a clone of Pitfall! on my cellphone, I wouldn't even play it much, because the controls suck and the screen is too small.
because you don't own the game? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:because you don't own the game? (Score:1)
Yes you do. (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that you typically can't transfer the games to your new handset if/when you upgrade is another matter...
Re:because you don't own the game? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which leads me to another point. I'm not going to pay [insert carrier here] $5 to play a game which I may hate, but still have to pay $5 for. Not to mention that when I switch phones, I have to pay for it again for the same mo
No market (Score:5, Insightful)
IF you can have a real game console, why bother playing on something that can, at best, recreate the experience of a C64?
Seriously, I was pondering getting into the cell game market. But the devices simply don't have the necessary hardware to create current game. A halfway decent game fills your available memory, you have a display the size of a stamp and a resolution that makes you wonder if that what you're shooting at is supposed to be a plane or a donkey.
Now add that half of the games won't work on YOUR cellphone, and if, your display will probably not match the one the programmer used (i.e. you'll either be missing some vital information which gets cut off or you have some black bars), i.e. a lack of interface standards to work with, add that more often than not the programmers used to create those games aren't quite the creme of game creators (most cell games are hacked together by recently graduated students, it's for most their first job ever) and you have a clean picture why the market doesn't take off:
After the first game, you never buy one again.
Re:No market (Score:2)
Re:No market (Score:2)
Unfortunately, those games rely heavily on good gameplay and interesting ideas. And that's definitly out of fashion today.
Re:No market (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No market (Score:3, Interesting)
It's amazing how complex they try to make the graphics for a simple card game. Why couldn't they just display the cards and bets in a way that I could see them? I really don't need pictures of the people I'm "playing" against.
I also tried chess, and I'm not a great
Re:No market (Score:1)
Re:No market (Score:2)
The main reason for their failure will always be the controls, IMHO. Phone keypads will never be good for gaming - even Snake on the old black and white Nokias was pushing the limits of controllability. The N-Gage, a mobile phone specifically designed for games, still had seriously crappy controls compared to t
Re:No market (Score:2)
This is definitely true. I have a Texas Hold 'Em game for my phone that is pretty good. Only problem is sometimes a 3 card will be used like a 9 when evaluating hands. How could they miss such a large bug? I wrote the company that made the game, they wrote me back once, and then ignored me
Re:No market (Score:2)
It does have some annoying behavior still though, like the occasional guy who comes in and puts it all in before the flop goes down every round.
Re:No market (Score:3, Funny)
The developers of "Flying Donkey Storm 3" really did some amazing work. You definitely can tell you're shooting at donkeys.
Re:No market (Score:2)
Independent games? (Score:2)
IF you can have a real game console, why bother playing on something that can, at best, recreate the experience of a C64?
Because if you have an unlocked system, you can legitimately play independently developed freeware on it. Many phones and handheld video game systems use the lockout chip business model, but phones are less likely to be locked than Nintendo or Sony handheld video game systems. Many people who post to Slashdot prefer to buy a phone on the open market which has not been locked, get the
Have you seen some of the game offerings? (Score:3, Informative)
It was worse than I imagined. You used your arrow keys to move the crosshair to shot enemies that popped up like a cheesy carnival game. Absolutely horrible.
I remember the days when a cellphone was just a cellphone.
Re:Have you seen some of the game offerings? (Score:2)
And I remember when people like you were annoying little kids at school, who I could choose not to hang around with, and beat you up occasionally so that you would get the message. I seems you still haven't gotten the message, so I'm coming round!
I too remember those days, when cellphones didn't have much or a display, on the numbers you dialed (and not all of those). There was no indicators for signal or battery, there was no date or time (
Why's that, again? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Battery life. I'm not going to waste charge on gaming. I need my cell phone too much, and spend too much time without access to a charger.
2) Cost. Considering that my Verizon game service charges something like $6-8 per game, why would I bother? Chances are I'll feel like I wasted that money -- I have better gaming experiences with stuff we wrote in BASIC and Pascal in grade school.
3) Suckage. Besides the fact that so many games available for cell phones suck, the phone itself sucks for gaming. From screen size to processor speed to control issues, a cell phone is a sub-par mobile gaming device. If I'm going to spend $400 on a phone that handles games well, I'd just as soon buy a PSP or a DS, thank you.
Too Complex (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the reason, IMO, that Pac-Man and Tetris do so well. The controls are easy, straight forward, and the games are easy to get a hold on. Let's keep in mind that the average cell phone user probably isn't a gamer, and is looking for an easy-to-play distraction in a game on the cell phone. They don't want something complex. Pac-Man requires use of the little D-Pad (at least on my phone), and that's it. Tetris works with the D-Pad and OK button. Easy! Enjoyable! Sold!
Cell phone developers should look at ways to take games, simplify them to work on the control layouts available for cell phones, and keep things simple. Of course, the people interested in games on cell phones will primarily be gamers, but cell phones just can't handle complex games, and they really shouldn't try to port games like CoD, Splinter Cell, or any of the other kinds. Keep it simple. I'm sure some people would even enjoy Pong, or a simplified top-down shooter like 1942. I would certainly buy one of those games. In short, cell phone developers should K.I.S.S.
Wrong application (Score:2)
Phones are mainly aimed to personal mobile communication.
Even the camera and the limited PIM features are used very rarely and usually only if there's no other option.
We all hope that manufacturer will focus on better communication features, capabilities and performances instead of wondering about stupid questions!
Mobile gaming can be accomplished with, say, a PSP. And if you need multi plyer gaming, link it to your mobile
Re:Wrong application (Score:1)
Need a new/different paradigm (Score:2)
Re:Need a new/different paradigm (Score:1)
Simple games that you compete against other people in real time.
Those would likely eat your minutes, even if your phone company would allow them on its network.
Tetris and breakout are the only two games needed (Score:2)
The only time I find myself playing cell phone games is when I am waiting in a lobby, waiting on someone, or just need to kill time if I arrive for an appointment early.
If I fly or go on a road trip, I'm probaly going to bring the DS though and won't think twice about opening the cell phone to kill time.
My cell phone is just clunky and slow for anything advances like a Gameboy.
One of my earlier cell phones had a co
Re:Tetris and breakout are the only two games need (Score:2)
You are obviously young and inexperienced. Frogger is by far the best game for mobile phones,
However, you look at it, a cell phone with the compuing power and graphics capability of a 1980s computer is probably only suitable for running the kind of games that were designed and developed on computers with similar power and graphics. And they have almost all been done, and are available for free. But let me know
Re:Tetris and breakout are the only two games need (Score:2)
You had to tell Larry what to do. Open Door, walk left, Screw the hooker, put ice on your face, pay cabbie.
Of course I was 12 at that time and I didn't play those kinds of games, or hid them on my fathers computer where he couldn't find them. I didn't have specially designed boot disks to load up specfic games with advanced memory requirements.
Another reason (Score:3, Insightful)
How hard would it be to have trial versions that only give you a couple of levels or that expire after a few days?
What does this say to the developers? (Score:1)
I totally agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus who is writing the descriptions for these games? They tell you almost nothing about them, and since the trial version is usually $2 to $4 it's a pretty big expense just to see if you even like the game. A screenshot at the very least would be extremely helpful, but perhaps a 5 second demo clip, or even a [gasp!] free 10 minute trial would entice people to buy more games since it wouldn't be such a shot in the dark.
Also I don't know about what other carriers offer but I just don't understand how the widely popular PopCap games aren't offered. I believe they license to Microsoft, but either way someone is missing out on a lucrative phone game market on that end. I think popcap games would be perfect for a phone - quick, colorful, insanely addictive, and completely a temporary distraction, easy to pick up and no need to desperately save your place.
Who knows? Maybe all of those games and more ARE available right now, but I'll never know because I'm never going to pay $4 just to find out if SuperUltraMegaShapeBlaster is something I'd like to play.
Re:I totally agree (Score:1)
Some are, at least. There's a godawful port of Bejeweled that comes pre-loaded (only as a demo, natch) on my Motorola V220.
This McAteer fellow stole my mojo! (Score:2)
Dude, I said the exact same thing [kiyon.com] three months ago.
No, the cat does not "got my tongue." (Score:1)
> companies like Jamdat may have hoped for
I can't imagine why paying $3.99 to download a game that looks like something from the Atari 2600 days and plays on a tiny little screen with clumsy buttons, that self-destructs after one month, where I'd have to pay another $3.99 to get it again.
Nope, I can't see anything in any of those issues that might be harming the spread of the concept.
Idiot companies (Score:3, Insightful)
In the information age, people making game purchasing decisions where they are actually expected to pay money (and $5 is not insignificant) expect to have reviews, screenshots, possibly even videos at their fingertips to educate them before they make their purchasing decision.
Of course I'm sure the cell companies are reluctant to supply that otherwise everybody would know what utter crap 99.9% of those games are.
Re:Idiot companies (Score:1)
But less facetiously, you are absolutely right. It should be a basic requirement for people to be able to check out what they're buying, at the point of sale. The major obstacles to this are the carriers' control over the channel, and the prohibitively expensive cost of data traffic (for screenshots, demos, etc.).
Here in Europe we're just starting to see free demos of mobile games which are time-lo
And now, a different perspective... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, many games aren't ideally suited for the cell phone's controls, but considering that many of our games are 3D and have the graphical levels equivalent to a PS1, to say that the games look like "Atari" or whatever some of you guys have been saying is ridiculous. All I'm saying is that citing technical limitations when commenting against the cell phone game industry is ridiculous and shows just how out of touch you are with the technology that is already out there and owned by millions of people RIGHT NOW. Just because you or your friends are stuck with something like a Samsung A620 or an old Razr model doesn't mean that many other people own better devices.
The days of slowly-refreshing LCD displays and pitiful resolutions are over. Yes, those phones still come out, and they're given out like candy to the lowest-paying customers, but many people already have extremely high-performing phones (LG 8100 is one of my favorites). The resolution is very high (considering the size of the screen) and with recent announcements by some graphics hardware manufacturers of increasing their cell phone presense, expect cell phones to become exponentially more powerful in the very near future.
As far as controls go, we're now seeing ergonomically-designed phones like the LG 9800 (look this beauty up) that are the size of normal phones but, when flipped open, have a full QWERTY keyboard and directional pads that work great for gaming. The number of models that work like this is, again, going to increase, just like the hardware performance has been increasing at an astronomical pace in just the last 3 years. So yes, maybe some games aren't suited for SOME current phone models yet, but there are already devices out there that ARE, and the number of these models will only increase.
Now, I grant you that the pricing scheme of "renting" games, and the fact that cell phone carriers do a piss-poor job of marketing the content, stands in the way of wider availability. But to say that there's no market out there (when it's growth has yet to slow down) or that the games suck (read the reviews, many of these games are critically-acclaimed), or that the hardware isn't suited for gaming (look at all the MODERN phones coming out now, and all the phones that will be out in a year or two) is RIDICULOUS and shows nothing but ignorance on your part.
Mobile gaming isn't for everyone, and the best sellers will likely always be quick puzzle games and 2D platformers, but that doesn't mean that millions of people don't want to buy them (they do, and more will in the future), or that these games can't be wonderfully-designed, or that they all have to look like Pong.
Some good games (Score:1)
It depends on your phone (Score:1)
Re:It depends on your phone (Score:2)
Dopey me, and here I thought it was the responsibility of developers to write quality games for their phone! I didn't know the real solution was to diss your market for not buying better gear...
Re:It depends on your phone (Score:1)