What's stopping iPhones and Android Phones from becoming consoles?

[s44]

KB+M are great for FPS but they pretty much suck for every thing else.

FPS, TPS, MMO, any strategy game...

It does suck for platforming, though.

 

[Red Storm]

Actually it is about Angry Birds, to a certain extent. My gaming habits have changed, partially because I only have a limited time with which to game.

I'd rather play Angry Birds for a short period than Call of Duty for the same period of time, despite the fact I paid roughly 50X as much for Call of Duty.

No, it's not. Angry Birds is an on the go time waster, a market that mobile devices have already cornered. We're talking about the console market, something that mobile devices can begin to eat into as well, we just need to see things like official controllers.

 

[dagamer34]

Well, Square is releasing games on Ouya, a start up with a similar concept. So is Namco and many other studios. You honestly don't think other developers aren't going to jump on board if Apple officially backs it up with a well designed controller, well designed system, and massive marketing? If there are enough developers backing up Ouya, a start up, how many will back up Apple/Google with native support?

I understand that you're skeptical but the evidence is right there. There are already people trying to do this (Ouya). It's only a matter of time until the smartphone will start replacing consoles.

The Phantom was a nice idea too.

 

[dagamer34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Vita#Sales

There is strong evidence that the Vita isn't selling because of smart phones in my opinion. Just look at tech websites - how many of them are talking about the Vita? None. How many of them are talking about iPhones and Android phones? All of them. The hype of a dedicated mobile gaming platform has dissipated and transferred over to smartphones. No body wants a new Vita for Christmas. Everybody wants a new iPhone or Android phone. IGN, a mostly gaming website, covers smartphones more than the Vita.

Perhaps there aren't any games on the Vita is because developers don't like the risk of backing a platform that was destined to fail in the post-iPhone 2G world?

Also check out the sales numbers between the 3DS and DS. The 3DS has sold about 20 millon units so far - a great number. But it will never ever reach 150 million units that the DS achieved. There's no way Nintendo will ever make a handheld that will top 100 million in sales again. In fact, I think the successor to the 3DS will be the last Nintendo handheld ever made.

Didn't I just say correlation doesn't prove causation? Or did you skip that part?

 

[dagamer34]

Well, Square is releasing games on Ouya, a start up with a similar concept. So is Namco and many other studios. You honestly don't think other developers aren't going to jump on board if Apple officially backs it up with a well designed controller, well designed system, and massive marketing? If there are enough developers backing up Ouya, a start up, how many will back up Apple/Google with native support?

I understand that you're skeptical but the evidence is right there. There are already people trying to do this (Ouya). It's only a matter of time until the smartphone will start replacing consoles.

When Square Enix actually releases as game, you can use the verb "is". Until then, it's all future tense, and a LOT of projects and tried to go down that path and failed miserably.

And your hyperbole is getting worse. Smartphones replacing consoles? Now you've gone off the deep end.

 

[Exophase]

A box connected to your TV can and has been designed to consume 200W. Most of that can be dedicated to the CPU, GPU, and RAM. A tablet can only take a few W (well under 10W for something light without a fan) and a big chunk of that must be spent on the display. So the console will be able to dedicate 10-20 times as much power and graphics scale well with power budget.

It's true that the gap narrows tremendously if you have consoles that aren't updated for several years like the ones currently out, vs tablets updated every year. In the short term this might force consoles to update more frequently to remain competitive. But in the long term you're going to see improvement on peak performance of phone and tablets slow down because they've peaked out power consumption and process improvements will slow down and provide smaller benefits. Consoles can still easily win while lagging 3 years, so a 3 year update cycle might be sufficient.

Of course all of this only matters if people care about getting the best graphics for AAA titles instead of being content with the level we have now.

 

[mikegg]

A box connected to your TV can and has been designed to consume 200W. Most of that can be dedicated to the CPU, GPU, and RAM. A tablet can only take a few W (well under 10W for something light without a fan) and a big chunk of that must be spent on the display. So the console will be able to dedicate 10-20 times as much power and graphics scale well with power budget.

It's true that the gap narrows tremendously if you have consoles that aren't updated for several years like the ones currently out, vs tablets updated every year. In the short term this might force consoles to update more frequently to remain competitive. But in the long term you're going to see improvement on peak performance of phone and tablets slow down because they've peaked out power consumption and process improvements will slow down and provide smaller benefits. Consoles can still easily win while lagging 3 years, so a 3 year update cycle might be sufficient.

Of course all of this only matters if people care about getting the best graphics for AAA titles instead of being content with the level we have now.

Consoles will obviously always have better graphics. But that's not the point here. The point is that EVERYONE and their mothers are going to have a smart phone. Just buy a $20 controller and you have a console. You don't have to spend $400 on a dedicated console. That's the selling point.

Graphics will get better and it will approach console-like quality in the future. That's not a problem.

 

[mikegg]

Didn't I just say correlation doesn't prove causation? Or did you skip that part?

And didn't I tell you that it does correlate or did you skip that part?

 

[mikegg]

When Square Enix actually releases as game, you can use the verb "is". Until then, it's all future tense, and a LOT of projects and tried to go down that path and failed miserably.

And your hyperbole is getting worse. Smartphones replacing consoles? Now you've gone off the deep end.

The games are already announced. The point is that Square is WILLING to back a small startup in this space with only $8 million in funding. What will Square do when Apple puts $5 billion into the project?

How's my hyperbole getting worse? I've been making the same point over and over again.

I sense defeat from you.

 

[mikegg]

The Phantom was a nice idea too.

Ouya already has a working product. It's releasing March 2013. It's not vaporware.

I sense defeat.

 

[dagamer34]

Consoles will obviously always have better graphics. But that's not the point here. The point is that EVERYONE and their mothers are going to have a smart phone. Just buy a $20 controller and you have a console. You don't have to spend $400 on a dedicated console. That's the selling point.

Graphics will get better and it will approach console-like quality in the future. That's not a problem.

The problem is that "console-like" is a level that continues to shift, otherwise would would have said they've achieved console like graphics already (The iPhone 5 can certainly produce better graphics than the PS2, which was a console, only problem is that it's 12 years old). In fact, with a controller today, the idea should be successful, no? Why should we have to wait for better graphics in the future? Either people desire better graphics (meaning hardware that can use more power is more important) or the idea should be viable now and there's no need to wait (making your last comment rather moot).

The games are already announced. The point is that Square is WILLING to back a small startup in this space with only $8 million in funding. What will Square do when Apple puts $5 billion into the project?

How's my hyperbole getting worse? I've been making the same point over and over again.

I sense defeat from you.

What evidence is there that Apple is going to put any money down, much less $5 billion? Now we are just pulling numbers out of thin air!

Ouya already has a working product. It's releasing March 2013. It's not vaporware.

I sense defeat.

As long as the release date is in the future and not the past, it is essentially vapor ware. Kick starter dates are notoriously inaccurate. It's crowd funding, not a store.

 

[zCypher]

My ping, if they ever got online games to work with phones, would be horrendous. I'm not paying to get slaughtered by grandmothers with iPhones.

wat

took that pic just now with my Note, on, I guess 4g.
one would assume that if you're gaming with your cell phone, you will be conncted to wi-fi. when at home on wi-fi, I get very similar ping times to my wired connection unless i'm having a wi-fi issue. ping shouldn't be a big problem.

 

[Bateluer]

Consoles will obviously always have better graphics. But that's not the point here. The point is that EVERYONE and their mothers are going to have a smart phone. Just buy a $20 controller and you have a console. You don't have to spend $400 on a dedicated console. That's the selling point.

Graphics will get better and it will approach console-like quality in the future. That's not a problem.

Theres some problems with your reasoning here. First, console graphics are not static. A high end PC video card today boasts more processing power than the entire X360 and PS3, and they continue to improve every year. Smart phones aren't going to keep up with that, and they haven't even come close to hitting the current X360/PS3 levels yet.

Second, smartphone gaming is 99% casual. Stuff like Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja, Words with Friends, etc. These don't translate very well to a 55" TV. Then theres the question of storage. Carriers and manufacturers are slowly doing away with expandable storage, and with entry level smartphones weighing in at 16GBs, thats a pretty serious limitation when you try to make an actual game.

 

[mikegg]

Theres some problems with your reasoning here. First, console graphics are not static. A high end PC video card today boasts more processing power than the entire X360 and PS3, and they continue to improve every year. Smart phones aren't going to keep up with that, and they haven't even come close to hitting the current X360/PS3 levels yet.

Second, smartphone gaming is 99% casual. Stuff like Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja, Words with Friends, etc. These don't translate very well to a 55" TV. Then theres the question of storage. Carriers and manufacturers are slowly doing away with expandable storage, and with entry level smartphones weighing in at 16GBs, thats a pretty serious limitation when you try to make an actual game.

Console graphic hardware is static. There's nothing wrong with my statement.

Smartphones don't have to keep up with PS4/Xbox720 graphics. It doesn't have to. That's the point.

Smartphone gaming will change when Apple/Google decide to to turn phones into consoles, hence, the point of this thread.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Ps3 controllers already work on Android. Just plug them in, or there is an app to run them wireless.

 

[mikegg]

Ps3 controllers already work on Android. Just plug them in, or there is an app to run them wireless.

Now for Google to create an intuitive controller exclusively for Android, make it easy to hook your phone up to TV, and sign on developers, encourage phone makers to invest in better GPUs.

 

[dagamer34]

Google thought the Nexus Q was a good idea and totally sucked at selling the Nexus 4. I don't have much hope.

 

[mikegg]

Google thought the Nexus Q was a good idea and totally sucked at selling the Nexus 4. I don't have much hope.

Now I know you're just trolling.

 

[dagamer34]

Now I know you're just trolling.

Did I say something incorrect? Was the Nexys Q a good product? Did the Nexus 4 release go well. I can't understand why on earth someone though the Nexus Q was a good idea and didnt think making something like the Ouya wasn't. Or why taking the guts of the Nexus 7, sum ticking it into a little box and making their own Google TV box with controller support wasn't desirable

Because the seem to miss the blindingly obvious, it's why I have little faith.

 

[mikegg]

Did I say something incorrect? Was the Nexys Q a good product? Did the Nexus 4 release go well. I can't understand why on earth someone though the Nexus Q was a good idea and didnt think making something like the Ouya wasn't. Or why taking the guts of the Nexus 7, sum ticking it into a little box and making their own Google TV box with controller support wasn't desirable

Because the seem to miss the blindingly obvious, it's why I have little faith.

So Google fails at 2 cell phones launches then they can't be successful at launching another?

Last I checked, Google's stock prices are over $700. They know how to launch and how to create successful products.

 

[dagamer34]

So Google fails at 2 cell phones launches then they can't be successful at launching another?

Last I checked, Google's stock prices are over $700. They know how to launch and how to create successful products.

Past history is the best predictor of future performance. Bungled Nexus One launch (terrible online retail experience, bad customer support). Poor Galaxy Nexus launch (bad working relationship with Verizon, delayed release, plus extremely slow ability to push OS updates). Poor Nexus 7 launch (pre-order system crashing, seemingly random order of items being shipped to customers, slow delivery times). Poor Nexus 4 and sluggish Nexus 10 launch (repeated ad nausem in this forum, I don't need to go into it). In fact, the only time I think Google got it right was with the Nexus S, which by my count makes them 1/6 in the last 3 years. Google does not know how to sell a retail product. They suck at it.

And I'm not sure what you mean to imply by stating that "Google's stock prices are over $700" when the value of a company also depends on the number of shares in existence. Plus, by similar logic, Apple's stock price should be over $1000 after the successful launch of the iPhone 5, iPad mini, iPad 4, and 13" Retina MacBook Pro that went so well, and yet it sits at ~$515 off $200 from its high of $700 in September. Stock price is a poor proxy for the ability of a company to launch a product when a rumor on the Internet can sway it so easily.

 

[WelshBloke]

Now for Google to create an intuitive controller exclusively for Android, make it easy to hook your phone up to TV, and sign on developers, encourage phone makers to invest in better GPUs.

Why do they need an exclusive controller?

Would using an hdmi lead count as easy to connect to a TV?

There's plenty of developers and a massive catalogue of old games.

Phones get more powerful every year.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Last I checked, Google's stock prices are over $700. They know how to launch and how to create successful products.

And I'm not sure what you mean to imply by stating that "Google's stock prices are over $700" when the value of a company also depends on the number of shares in existence. Plus, by similar logic, Apple's stock price should be over $1000 after the successful launch of the iPhone 5, iPad mini, iPad 4, and 13" Retina MacBook Pro that went so well, and yet it sits at ~$515 off $200 from its high of $700 in September. Stock price is a poor proxy for the ability of a company to launch a product when a rumor on the Internet can sway it so easily.

Most of Google's revenue/profit is from their ad platform.

 

[mikegg]

Past history is the best predictor of future performance. Bungled Nexus One launch (terrible online retail experience, bad customer support). Poor Galaxy Nexus launch (bad working relationship with Verizon, delayed release, plus extremely slow ability to push OS updates). Poor Nexus 7 launch (pre-order system crashing, seemingly random order of items being shipped to customers, slow delivery times). Poor Nexus 4 and sluggish Nexus 10 launch (repeated ad nausem in this forum, I don't need to go into it). In fact, the only time I think Google got it right was with the Nexus S, which by my count makes them 1/6 in the last 3 years. Google does not know how to sell a retail product. They suck at it.

And I'm not sure what you mean to imply by stating that "Google's stock prices are over $700" when the value of a company also depends on the number of shares in existence. Plus, by similar logic, Apple's stock price should be over $1000 after the successful launch of the iPhone 5, iPad mini, iPad 4, and 13" Retina MacBook Pro that went so well, and yet it sits at ~$515 off $200 from its high of $700 in September. Stock price is a poor proxy for the ability of a company to launch a product when a rumor on the Internet can sway it so easily.

So if Google can't launch anything right, then everyone should sell their Google stocks. Google is doomed.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Most of Google's revenue/profit is from their ad platform.

Their ad/search platform are some of the best products ever created and launched in history.