If phones are going to replace handhelds, where are the games nececarry?

[themistermanguy]

A common argument is that Mobile devices will diminish the handheld market because they have games that fill the portable void. Where exactly are these games though? Angry Birds? a shallow, abiet fun bird launcher where all you do is just swimpe the touch screen, and is only now starting to loose relivance. Fruit Ninja, another shallow, "how mcuh fruit can you cut game" that too has lost relevance. Flappy Bird?, another shallow time waster that was just removed, and probably forgoten.

People say NIntendo and Sony will be irrelevant in the handheld space because games on phone are cheaper alternatives. Failing to realize that the games on mobile devices are completely different from the ones on handhelds. The best games on handhelds are memorable experiences packed with content, depth, and variety, and can keep you enteratained for up to 3 hours. That's why they cost up to $40. Most mobile games while fun, are generic fads with shallow gameplay, lackluster content, and can only really entertain you for up 10 minnutes. Where's the iPhone's Monster Hunter, or Smash Bros. Killer? That isn't to say mobile games can't be good or aren't good, but compared to the best handheld games, most of them might as well be mini games.

I am aware that there are core franchises on mobile devices, but the vast majority of them are ported from other platforms. Adding insult to injury, not only do most core mobile games not make a profit, but the majority of mobile games in general don't make a profit. That's because all people even play on their phones are simple puzzle games, and novelty titles like Fruit Ninja. I can see young children (ages 6 to 10) being entertained by them for long periods of time, but once they get older, they'll want more competent game experiences.

Plus, kids are influenced by Brand recognition. If little kids see Mario, Sonic, Kirby and DK on the 3DS, then they'll want a 3DS. If teens see Street Fighter, Fire Emblem, Kid Icarus, Assasins Creed, Smash, and Monster Hunter on the 3DS and PS Vita respecitvley, they'll want both a 3DS and a PS Vita. Now obviously, this will work vice versa too, but the point is, as long as handhelds have games people want, and can offer experiences mobile devices can't, then they'll be sticking alongside phones and tablets for a long time.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

You might be surprised at how many people of all age groups find enjoyment in those shallow little games. The draw is that they are affordable time wasters that kids and adults can play on the fly when they have a spare minute or two. They might look petty by your standards, but to somebody who only has a scarce two hours of free time a day, they're very good stress relief.

It would make perfect sense that big developers would want to crack into that market, not only do they reach a wider audience, it largely operates on the free to play impulse buyer, which Square Enix at least is more than happy to embrace. Nintendo is a tricky one, they're very opposed to the prospect of putting their games on someone else's device, so if we're to see Nintendo games on a mobil platform, it would be a Nintendo created mobil platform, which is something they seem to already be going for (the WiiU controller looks like a tablet).

What this actually means for the future of handheld games? The AAA companies could shrink their budgets and make their own silly time wasters completely giving up on more meaningful experiences, we could see the little developers start making more ambitious games, or we could see a mixture of both, all those developers just sticking with what they're comfortable with making, also as long as Nintendo is Nintendo, you can at least expect them to... keep being Nintendo.

 

[Hazy992]

Just a few months ago I would have said the same, but nowadays I'm inclined to agree. Considering the complete lack of any quality control in the mobile space, combined with the frankly predatory business practices of a lot of mobile developers, I can see dedicated handhelds sticking around for a while yet.

Sure, most people who game on the go will be happy to stick to Candy Crush Saga or whatever, but I think Nintendo can still appeal to that more dedicated, more hardcore market and carve out a fairly sizeable niche for itself.

Sony on the other hand I don't see sticking around. I fully expect the Vita to be Sony's last dedicated handheld.

 

[themistermanguy]

You might be surprised at how many people of all age groups find enjoyment in those shallow little games. The draw is that they are affordable time wasters that kids and adults can play on the fly when they have a spare minute or two. They might look petty by your standards, but to somebody who only has a scarce two hours of free time a day, they're very good stress relief.

It would make perfect sense that big developers would want to crack into that market, not only do they reach a wider audience, it largely operates on the free to play impulse buyer, which Square Enix at least is more than happy to embrace. Nintendo is a tricky one, they're very opposed to the prospect of putting their games on someone else's device, so if we're to see Nintendo games on a mobile platform, it would be a Nintendo created mobile platform, which is something they seem to already be going for (the WiiU controller looks like a tablet).

What this actually means for the future of handheld games? The AAA companies could shrink their budgets and make their own silly time wasters completely giving up on more meaningful experiences, we could see the little developers start making more ambitious games, or we could see a mixture of both, all those developers just sticking with what they're comfortable with making, also as long as Nintendo is Nintendo, you can at least expect them to... keep being Nintendo.

Now yes, there is enjoyment to be found in mobile games. I actually played a few, and they are fun, but they're not something I'd play for hours on end. I do agree however, that the handheld market has considerably shrunk, but I still think the 2 markets can co-exist. Nintendo said something about using mobile devices for marketing purposes. Not only will that strengthen Nintendo's presence, but it will also get a new audience into handheld and console gaming.

 

[Euryalus]

I'm kind of confused at the constant title of time waster placed on these kinds of games. Simple or not games like fruit ninja, angry birds, and the impossible game are genuinely fun to play. I don't feel like my time was wasted playing them?

And really, how are they much different from tetris, pacman, or other earlier iconic games? I don't know...

To answer the original question though, I think your right. I don't see phones replacing hanhelds very soon. Maybe, but for now the markets seem different. Meaning they're not really competing, not yet anyway.

 

[Raikas]

I don't think simple games are by nature shallow - or if they are, that it's a bad thing to be. The good ones do what they're meant to do - be entertaining in short/staggered bits of time.

I am aware that there are core franchises on mobile devices, but the vast majority of them are ported from other platforms. Adding insult to injury, not only do most core mobile games not make a profit, but the majority of mobile games in general don't make a profit. That's because all people even play on their phones are simple puzzle games, and novelty titles like Fruit Ninja. I can see young children (ages 6 to 10) being entertained by them for long periods of time, but once they get older, they'll want more competent game experiences.

I disagree that it's a kid's market: I see a good number of professionals playing gaming on their tablets on the train very regularly. And not exclusively "angry birds"-type games either - more and more I'm seeing people playing things like old adventure games as well as new adventure and puzzle games like The Room. If anything, I'd expect that market to be growing.

 

[senordesol]

As a mobile dev, I feel confident in saying that handhelds aren't going anywhere any time soon. However, it's very much worth your time to keep an eye on the iTunes app store. Angry Birds, at this point, is old news and rarely finds its way into the top grossing anymore.

There are a lot of titles that are very much worth playing, even if they can't deliver the same punch as a $40 HHcart. Asphalt 8 is one of my favorites. I hear Republique is pretty good too. The point is: no one should be worried about the mobile market totally eclipsing the handheld market, but it shouldn't be dismissed either.

The only reason anyone would have to worry is if handheld developers (foolishly) decide they can make Candy Crush money if they start squirting out mobile titles and focus exclusively on that...which would be a crying shame.

 

[EvilRoy]

Based on discussions with my coworkers who have children, I get the feeling that the mobile market may chew away at the handheld market in terms of kids up to around 10-15 years. The parents don't want to field the 60 bucks for a game that may or may not impress plus the cost of the handheld itself, when compared to a system of last years smartphone plus a few 5 dollar games fills the same entertainment requirement.

The kids themselves don't seem to notice or care about the difference. They have big games on their big console and small games on their small mobiles. When I mentioned to a parent that I enjoy some games on the DS they asked how long it would take me to beat the average game - at an average of a couple weeks per game they just said no way, because the kid would never play the game for that long.

 

[clippen05]

Plus, kids are influenced by Brand recognition. If little kids see Mario, Sonic, Kirby and DK on the 3DS, then they'll want a 3DS.

See, that's not really true anymore. Maybe 5-10 years ago, but not today. I'd say that more young kids recognise Angry Birds than all of those brands combined. And if they had to choose between Angry Birds and Mario, I'm sure many would choose Angry Birds.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

The best games on handhelds are memorable experiences packed with content, depth, and variety, and can keep you enteratained for up to 3 hours.

Three whole hours of entertainment?! What an astounding span of time!

Seriously though you're right, smart phone games are terrible compared to portable console games and that's why 3DS (and PS Vita to a lesser extent) continue to be successful. Of course if quality games with lots of depth and content could be successful on smart phones I do believe that portable consoles will quickly fade into obscurity. The problem is that the smart phone games stores are so thoroughly inundated with P2W crap and cheap puzzle games that a $40 (even $20) game would just be inconceivable, even if it's well worth every penny.

 

[Brian Tams]

I think that both mediums have their own set of strengths and weaknesses, as well as their own respective audiences, and as such, I don't see Mobiles outright replacing handhelds.
Do I believe it will be reduced? Absolutely. The handheld market has, for the most part, been utterly dominated by Nintendo. Now you have a cheaper alternative to handheld gaming that has a gigantic instal base encroaching on their territory. It would be ignorant to assume that handhelds wouldn't be affected. But I don't think it outright kills the 3DS and PS Vita.

 

[Sight Unseen]

You'd be surprised at how many legitimately good games are available on phones nowadays. There's even an Assassin's Creed game exclusively on phones.

Personally I don't game on phones because I don't like the touch screen controls and my battery life leaves a lot to be desired. However I DO have an NVidia shield which is essentially an Android tablet with a controller stcuck on to it and there's a lot of games that make good use of the controller, and this number will only increase over time as the tech improves.

To list some games that work perfectly with my shield and would also work well on phones if you can tolerate the touch controls and the battery life:

GTA: San Andreas
Cave Story
The Bard's Tale
Conduit HD
The Walking Dead
Asphalt 8
Riptide GP2
Reaper: Tale of a Pale Swordsman
Arma: Tactics (it's like XCOM)


And lots more

Now, to be fair, these games may not all be console quality games but for the low price of $0-10 you get a hell of a good value on all of the ones mentioned above. And most of them have very few or no microtransactions if they have any upfront cost.

There's way more shit to sift through on the mobile markets, but if you do your research a bit there's a very large number of games from a wide array of genres available on phones and tablets nowadays.

 

[CJ Schappert]

The kids themselves don't seem to notice or care about the difference. They have big games on their big console and small games on their small mobiles. When I mentioned to a parent that I enjoy some games on the DS they asked how long it would take me to beat the average game - at an average of a couple weeks per game they just said no way, because the kid would never play the game for that long.

As a kid who grew up on GBC and GBA, I have to disagree with those parents. Even when I had tons of GBA games from every years Black Friday buy 2 get 2 free from the cheapo bins I spent a good while in every game playing it. Not always to completion, but trying to. But when i ever try one of these new mobile games on a phone or tablet, I give up (forever) after 10-30 minutes most of the time. The difference is the types of game and the way it is made. On an actually gaming handheld the good games engage you, they have some kind of progress and thing to strive for in someway or another. I felt like playing it was giving me something. and Even when the first mobile phone games were coming out and I tried them, and never felt that same engaging or strive. If 2 Powerpuff Girls, 2 Dexter's lab games, and a Samurai Jack games can engage me on a GBA without trying, but Angery Birds, Flappy Bird, and that Sonic mobile game can't engage me when I try to be. I'd call that a failure of the platform. The games are shallow,in some other way as compared to what is shallow on other platforms, just in general. I see handhelds sticking around for those that need that higher level portable gaming.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Another thing to note, without even touching on the OP's issue of games, is convenience. There's a saying photographers use frequently, describing "The best camera" as "the one that you have with you." Before I had even heard the phrase, I was already putting emphasis on a high quality camera in my smartphone. I wanted to know that I could take good quality snaps from my phone since, unlike my significantly better, but bulkier, DSLR with it's great lens and full gamut of options and modes, I almost always have my phone with me.

The fact is everyone has a phone and a lot of those are smartphones. This is a device that travels with its owner to work, on holiday, out for social occasions and often to bed as well. The best handheld is the one that you have with you, and how many can be seen on a daily commute? Around the house and on holiday, it's undoubtedly the better choice simply by merit of its dedicated hardware and input controls. But it is "another" device that requires charging, can only hold so many games and does nothing else besides play games. As such it is not carried by the public at large, unlike the phone where its gaming capabilities are secondary and also don't require another device to be carried.

And despite the significance of the above, I haven't even touched on the issue of cost/price. The outlay for a dedicated handheld gaming device, the games which are more expensive, the Vita in particular I believe requires dedicated memory cards in addition *and* logging into PSN over WiFi to download stuff. Smartphones can get any game at any time wherever there is reception without costly additions. Further, smartphones/tablets have a significantly larger audience I would wager, than all handheld gaming devices combined.

 

[JayRPG]

Handheld consoles will stick around for a lot longer more so because of hardware than software.

My phone is more powerful than my 3DS (the Note 3) but the S5 comes out in less than a month and it is more powerful than my note 3... and I only got this about 5 months ago.

But wait, 4 months after the S5 comes out Samsung will hold an event to unveil the Note 4, which will be more powerful again, and on and on and on.

How would devs ever be able to optimize games or make sure that the games work for all devices or correctly troubleshoot or even have enough development time to make a game on the same scope as say persona 4 golden on the Vita with such a short hardware turn-around?

With a very small number of exceptions, game developers don't get devkit phones to develop for months or years in advance.

It is the reason why you will find there is less trouble with iOS games (compared to android) due to the closed nature or their OS and the usually small incremental performance upgrades made to new iphones.

It is the reason why I still can't play the chrono trigger port on my note 3, because the game wasn't ported to this version of android nor was it meant for the hardware of the note 3.

Phones and tablets will likely never be an ideal place for console quality games*, the hardware makes it entirely possible but the hardware turn-around makes it near impossible or at the very least extremely impractial.

*Please don't look at me with any seriousness and say something silly like "what about infinity blade 3?" You mean that 3 hour long game with PSP graphics that is nothing more than a QTE simulator?
There are some (very few) mobile games out there that match current-gen handheld (or even console) graphics, which is impressive, but they all fall short in almost every other area - most graphically impressive mobile games have little-to-no actual gameplay and the ones that have gameplay (asphalt) have no content and on and on and on.

 

[Darth Marsden]

There's three main factors that separate mobile games from handheld ones.

The first is hardware. Handheld devices have a unified set of specs that devs can work towards, while phones and tablets don't - they're constantly evolving, which can cause problems in that regard. And it's not just how powerful your phone is, it's also how you control it. Touch screens are simply not appropriate for all types of gameplay, - try to play a Castlevania game on your touchscreen, for example, and you WILL fail. Handhelds have buttons, which allow for more control than a touchscreen can provide.

The second is accessibility. Pretty much everyone has a phone or a tablet these days (the later for me), so rather than having to purchase a dedicated device for gaming, you can play stuff on a device you'd use anyway, which is a lot more convenient for 'casual gamers', rather than having to pull out a separate handheld, boot it up and then load your game.

The third is environment. If you release a game for, say, the 3DS, then you know it's at least going to be a complete and functional product, right? There's some form of stability there, because you have Nintendo enforcing that. There also won't be a crap-ton of adverts or mircotransactions, because, again, Nintendo ain't having it. But with Android or iOS, it's much more of an open market. There's very few rules and regulations, which can allow for a lot more creativity but also allows for plenty of rip-offs (*COUGH*STARTREKTREXELS*COUGH*) and unfinished games.

I'm not going to hold my hands up and say that one market is better than the other, because I honestly feel that there's room in this world for both. Sony obviously agrees, because they've got iOS games advertising their PS3/PS4 games (search for Ratchet & Clank or Knack), and honestly I think that's a pretty good way of doing things.

With Nintendo saying they could use mobiles for advertising, I wonder if they'll be considering doing something similar. I hope so - I could see a free Mario-themed endless runner that lets you earn extra lives for, say, Super Mario 3D World doing VERY well.

 

[Fox12]

I don't know anymore. I fianlly buckled down and bought Pokemon, and I love it.

That said, I have a younger brother, 11 years younger then me, grade school. Do you know what he plays? Apps. Just apps. He hasn't touched a handheld in over a year. Most kids his age seem to be gravitating towards apps. When I was his age, it was all about the gameboy color. You can't deny that apps are breaking into Nintendo's territory.

I hope handhelds don't go anywhere, but I honestly don't know.

 

[Weaver]

Personaly, I just need buttons. I can't use just a touch screen for shit all. Apparently, neither can devs, as they have to create the most simplistic control schemes and jam them into games.

 

[EvilRoy]

The kids themselves don't seem to notice or care about the difference. They have big games on their big console and small games on their small mobiles. When I mentioned to a parent that I enjoy some games on the DS they asked how long it would take me to beat the average game - at an average of a couple weeks per game they just said no way, because the kid would never play the game for that long.

As a kid who grew up on GBC and GBA, I have to disagree with those parents. Even when I had tons of GBA games from every years Black Friday buy 2 get 2 free from the cheapo bins I spent a good while in every game playing it. Not always to completion, but trying to. But when i ever try one of these new mobile games on a phone or tablet, I give up (forever) after 10-30 minutes most of the time. The difference is the types of game and the way it is made. On an actually gaming handheld the good games engage you, they have some kind of progress and thing to strive for in someway or another. I felt like playing it was giving me something. and Even when the first mobile phone games were coming out and I tried them, and never felt that same engaging or strive. If 2 Powerpuff Girls, 2 Dexter's lab games, and a Samurai Jack games can engage me on a GBA without trying, but Angery Birds, Flappy Bird, and that Sonic mobile game can't engage me when I try to be. I'd call that a failure of the platform. The games are shallow,in some other way as compared to what is shallow on other platforms, just in general. I see handhelds sticking around for those that need that higher level portable gaming.

Well, I had an original GB as well and I played many game to completion myself, but since speaking to those parents I have wondered about something. If those few games I had (six or seven if I remember) weren't literally my only option, would I have played them through? If I could have had a new free game now and then to play and toss, would I have bothered to persist playing games that I honestly in hindsight didn't care for, for the tens of hours necessary?

And thats the kind of thing I'm thinking the parents may be finding. The kids aren't locked into their decisions like we were, so there is no requirement to enjoy a game regardless of quality - and there is no/never was value or meaning to persisting against a mindless puzzle or broken controls just to win. They were never conditioned to enjoy or accept bullshit like we were, so of course they aren't going to like the same things.

 

[themistermanguy]

Let me clear something up. I'm not saying mobile games can't be fun (I enjoyed Cut the Rope), nor am I saying there aren't good mobile games. I'm just saying the few one hit wonders it has aren't nearly enough to erradicate the handheld market. Yes, the mobile market is hugely successful, but most of those successes are one time deals. Why, well most mainstream mobile games are let's be honest here, fads. Temple run was huge for a while, but now look where it's at. The same thing with Fruit Ninja. Now, Angry Birds is loosing relevance.