Kinect No Longer Required, Headsets to be included with XB1

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Kinect No Longer Required, Headsets to be included with XB1

Yes.

To me, 'AAA' game means the big companies put their money and talented people on the project, then ship with a big marketing effort. More and more, game companies will design high budget titles targeting lower specs of the mobile devices first. Maybe.

It's a speculation on my part, based on the assumption that ubiquity of the mobile devices--the large install base--will prove to be nearly irresistible to the game devs.

[Icemage]

Re: Kinect No Longer Required, Headsets to be included with XB1

Yes.

To me, 'AAA' game means the big companies put their money and talented people on the project, then ship with a big marketing effort. More and more, game companies will design high budget titles targeting lower specs of the mobile devices first. Maybe.

It's a speculation on my part, based on the assumption that ubiquity of the mobile devices--the large install base--will prove to be nearly irresistible to the game devs.

I'm not sure I agree.

The mobile space feels very much like the F2P and MMO "gold rush" environments in their early days. Basically a lot of enthusiasm, a lot of experimentation, TONS of announced projects in development, and in reality only a small fraction of games ever see success.

Mobile gaming will definitely have and keep its place. Phone and tablet gaming is definitely here to stay, in one form or another. However, I think there are two fundamental problems with mobile gaming that aren't easily overcome: control scheme and power budget. There's also a smaller problem of pricing paradigm for software.

Due to their touch-only interface, mobile platforms like cell phones and tablets have serious issues with any games that demand precise, controlled movement. Many game types simply don't work on a touch-only device without serious tradeoffs, and no amount of technological improvements will fix that. Twin stick shooters, non-endless runner platformers, any form of TPS or FPS, action brawlers of any stripe including fighting games or sidescrollers simply make zero sense at all on a touch device.

From a power budget perspective, modern mobile devices are fast closing in on the practical limit of what they can accomplish. Tethered devices like PC and consoles have what amounts to a nearly limitless power budget for computation, and can invest some of that power into cooling to make it happen. On a mobile device, you're limited to battery technology, which has not really changed much in the past two decades other than having more durable rechargeable batteries. The actual amount of power being supplied by the batteries really hasn't improved much at all, and barring some sort of new breakthrough technology, devices like the iPad3 are already very close to the power ceiling for what a portable device can pack. There can still be improvements in terms of more efficient internal hardware, etc. but as it stands right now mobile devices are "roughly" about 1 generation behind console hardware and 1.5 generations behind PC hardware, without much room for advances.

The pricing problem is a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and while it's potentially easier to work around, it's a big issue for AAA development on a mobile device. People who own a mobile device are used to very. very inexpensive software. Apple set the blueprint with a no holds barred pricing setup where developers can set any price they pretty much want. The massive competition drove pricing into the ground, as developers struggled to compete against similar products and gain more mindshare. This ended up completely warping the market, as consumers in the mobile space are used to extremely cheap or "free" games. It's great for consumers because they get a lot of content for a very low price (unless they get hooked into a heavily monetized "free to play" game).

The net result of all of this is that big developers and publishers can't risk putting their best teams on mobile. The most talented folks will want to be working on the best available hardware, many of the more creative types will balk at such a limited control scheme, and making a business case for spending those kinds of resources on a game that sells for $1 takes a ton of accounting gymnastics.

I think, rather than AAA development moving into mobile, we just see less AAA content, period. Teams will shrink, some of the more freewheeling developers will branch into indie development or accept the shackles of mobile development.

What I don't see happening is a large influx of AAA-class content on mobile devices. It makes zero business sense.


Icemage

[ItazuraNhomango]

Re: Kinect No Longer Required, Headsets to be included with XB1

Mobile gaming will definitely have and keep its place. Phone and tablet gaming is definitely here to stay, in one form or another. However, I think there are two fundamental problems with mobile gaming that aren't easily overcome: control scheme and power budget. There's also a smaller problem of pricing paradigm for software.

Control scheme may not that high of a barrier. We may lose some types of games, but gain in others.

Let's go back to before PC gaming; there were a number of video game consoles with joysticks, and the lowly Commodore 64 had better graphics and sounds than PC. Game developers adapted to keyboard control on C64 for people who haven't bought a joystick, and eventually PC when they became more popular than all other computers. Now we have games like Starcraft, whose control scheme completely depends on the keyboard and mouse.

While I agree many type of games today really cannot do without a keyboard or a physical controller, I see no reason why the developers wouldn't design a new generate games which would better suit touch screens.

The PC won its place in gaming by having a huge install base. If that install base shrinks enough, it will lose its appeal for big game makers.

From a power budget perspective, modern mobile devices are fast closing in on the practical limit of what they can accomplish. Tethered devices like PC and consoles have what amounts to a nearly limitless power budget for computation, and can invest some of that power into cooling to make it happen. On a mobile device, you're limited to battery technology, which has not really changed much in the past two decades other than having more durable rechargeable batteries. The actual amount of power being supplied by the batteries really hasn't improved much at all, and barring some sort of new breakthrough technology, devices like the iPad3 are already very close to the power ceiling for what a portable device can pack. There can still be improvements in terms of more efficient internal hardware, etc. but as it stands right now mobile devices are "roughly" about 1 generation behind console hardware and 1.5 generations behind PC hardware, without much room for advances.

I agree with most points, except I think you underestimate the improvement in silicon circuits' efficiency and what it would do for mobile devices' computational power.

But, the real question is: What is the biggest obstacle to better games on mobile platforms? Is it the hardware? Software? Or the dev's ability to design better games? My old, debuted-as-mid-tier phone has more memory, computational power, and even screen pixels than my first computer. There's more than enough hardware there for a compelling game, I would think. And, newer phones and tablets will certainly blow my phone away. (They already do, actually.)

The most talented folks will want to be working on the best available hardware, many of the more creative types will balk at such a limited control scheme, and making a business case for spending those kinds of resources on a game that sells for $1 takes a ton of accounting gymnastics.

I don't think creativity can only be unleashed by removing hardware limits--sometimes, just the opposite is true. The pricing will have to be sorted out by the market; either people want to pay AAA pricing, or AAA pricing (and thus game dev budget) will have to drop.

I think, rather than AAA development moving into mobile, we just see less AAA content, period. Teams will shrink, some of the more freewheeling developers will branch into indie development or accept the shackles of mobile development.

What I don't see happening is a large influx of AAA-class content on mobile devices. It makes zero business sense

At current pricing, it wouldn't make much sense. Then again, the $16 FF4 did get over 50,000 purchases, and the $20 Final Fantasy Dimensions (whatever that is), over 100,000. They are nowhere near a successful big budget title on PS3 or xBox360, but those numbers are not exactly chomp change either.

AAA is like summer blockbuster flicks; some years we'd have hardly any, some years there'd be a glut of them and most will lose big money. Unless PS4 and/or xBox1 hit it out of the park, there will be a decline in AAA title, I'm guessing.

But, just like there's always people who wants to make that $200 million film, there will be some geeks to who want to make the best shooter/RPG/something-or-other game ever, budget be darned--and manage to convince someone to give them the money to try it.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Kinect No Longer Required, Headsets to be included with XB1

The PC won its place in gaming by having a huge install base. If that install base shrinks enough, it will lose its appeal for big game makers.

You're out of your fucking mind if you think mobile devices are going to replace PCs.

Mobile devices are supplementary at best.

[Icemage]

Re: Kinect No Longer Required, Headsets to be included with XB1

Control scheme may not that high of a barrier. We may lose some types of games, but gain in others.

Let's go back to before PC gaming; there were a number of video game consoles with joysticks, and the lowly Commodore 64 had better graphics and sounds than PC. Game developers adapted to keyboard control on C64 for people who haven't bought a joystick, and eventually PC when they became more popular than all other computers. Now we have games like Starcraft, whose control scheme completely depends on the keyboard and mouse.

See, thing is, touch isn't a terrible control scheme, but it's not a particularly good one either. It offers very quick and intuitive 1:1 point location, and low latency for input, but suffers from mprecise control due to no physical haptic feedback. It also requires the user to obscure some/all of the screen when something is touched.

One reason PC is such a favored platform for gaming is because it offers a wealth of solid input options. Many, many keys - enough to customize to the user's preference. Two more buttons on the mouse + a scroll wheel, plus the actual mouse tracking pointer itself offer very fast pinpoint control. Plus the option of connecting a more traditional controller if you so desire (or pretty much any other peripheral, from a fightstick to a racing wheel).

Unless someone finds a way to get some better controls onto a mobile device as a standard, mobile gaming does not look like it will progress too much farther from where it stands today, because it's held back by the control scheme (Ouya tried to fix this from the other direction, by tethering the mobile hardware to a fixed console, and failed). PlayStation Vita tries to attack the problem from the other side, by bolting standard controls onto a touchscreen... and the market just shrugged.

While I agree many type of games today really cannot do without a keyboard or a physical controller, I see no reason why the developers wouldn't design a new generate games which would better suit touch screens.

If the potential was there to create breathtaking new gameplay using touch, it's likely we've already seen some iteration of it.

The PC won its place in gaming by having a huge install base. If that install base shrinks enough, it will lose its appeal for big game makers.

PC won back its place because of a cultural shift; Steam made it cool to buy games instead of pirating them, and the other services followed in their wake. Having a large install base is great, but means nothing if people won't buy the software (see: Wii).

I agree with most points, except I think you underestimate the improvement in silicon circuits' efficiency and what it would do for mobile devices' computational power.

I'm not saying that mobile devices won't continue to improve; I'm saying that unless our battery technology improves dramatically, there is a hard ceiling that mobile devices will never overcome in terms of computational power. It's my assertion that devices like the iPad 3 already push the limit pretty hard; it packs a ~3.7V 42 watt-hr battery. A huge amount of the device space and weight is already dedicated to battery power, so there's not too many places to go from there.

But, the real question is: What is the biggest obstacle to better games on mobile platforms? Is it the hardware? Software? Or the dev's ability to design better games? My old, debuted-as-mid-tier phone has more memory, computational power, and even screen pixels than my first computer. There's more than enough hardware there for a compelling game, I would think. And, newer phones and tablets will certainly blow my phone away. (They already do, actually.)

It's not the ability to design better games, that's for sure. I think the biggest problem with mobile is control scheme, and to a lesser extent hardware, from a technical standpoint. The biggest problem for AAA development is still the market environment, though. Mobile gaming is successful specifically because it's non-intrusive, low-cost, and not complex. AAA gaming is the antithesis of all three of those bullet points.

I don't think creativity can only be unleashed by removing hardware limits--sometimes, just the opposite is true. The pricing will have to be sorted out by the market; either people want to pay AAA pricing, or AAA pricing (and thus game dev budget) will have to drop.

I've already had this discussion with Armando in a different topic, but it's not specifically that creativity is unleashed. It's more that creative people want the fewest limitations on their vision, and in the absence of prevailing factors, will opt for whatever medium poses the fewest obstacles to their vision.

You can't really dissociate AAA budgets from AAA production quality. They go hand in hand. High quality game art costs a lot because the small number of people who can do it competently are highly skilled and are well paid for their time (as they should be, as skilled workers). That's not the same thing as saying that AAA = good game. But you're not going to get a game like The Last of Us or Bioshock Infinite on a mobile phone. Not only will the hardware not support the vision, but the controls won't support it, and even if you had both of those, you'd never convince consumers who maybe paid nothing for their phone due to subsidized contracts to shell out $60 for a game for it. Or even a $30 game. Maybe not even a $20 game.

but those numbers are not exactly chomp change either.

40K sales x $14 = $560K, which wouldn't even get you through pre-production on a AAA game. It's just a bridge to far.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Kinect No Longer Required, Headsets to be included with XB1

Mobile games are going to soon see thier bubble burst and the gold rush will end.

Big publisher are poisoning the well via microtransactions and alienating core gamers in the process by tainting IPs they loved with them. Final Fanatasy: All the Bravest, Megaman X, Tetris and more are incredibly vile thanks to the cash grab mentality iOS seems to foster. What's more is several indies are bowing out and taking to Nintendo, Sony or Valve because thier games might get a fighting chance on thier platforms in addition to the consumers on those platforms being willing to pay more for a more compete experience.