I just ordered mine. I am not so thrilled about it. I ordered it mainly because I want to develop some apps for it. I did play with it few time at the local BestBuy and at friend's. I don't see anything special in it besides being a newer bigger iPod.
Graphics? Yes it's better (in fact better than all other tablets) but were you really able to see the difference. What about the average folks? Do you think they will be able to see the difference. I am picky but not that picky.
Duo Core? Big deal. Many other tablets are featuring the same. The one I played with at Best Buy had all the popular apps loaded. Angry Bird was not so smooth with swipe action. Home screen swipe was fine. Still not so buttery to me.
Thinner? Yes but it's not as impressive as Kindle or Nook. If it was that thinner I would be like oh yea.
2 cameras? Isn't this about time? Apple is behind on this. Most of the Android tablets had them from day one.
Having said all that, it is still a nice toy. It definitely changed our mobile experience. Netbooks look so dead or even Laptops look so outdated compared to the tablets these days. I don't see it as a game machine. Instead, it will be another entertaining in it's space. We will browse sites, take notes, look up howtos, share stories, photos, videos, listen to audio books and read books to our kids like never before. Android or something similar will lead the market space eventually unless Apple becomes open. However, iPad will still be seen as the trend setter for a while.
Speaking of scroll speed, I didn't buy the first iPad because I mostly cared about it as a pdf reader and the resolution sucked too much. w/the ipad 2 the resolution still sucks so I figured it'd be no change. But when I used it in the store yesterday, scroll and zoom were so fast and seamless (even on 70-odd page pdf's in the browser reader) that I had no problem reading. Seriously considering one now.
Yeah, I've found that the increased speed makes me more likely to [happily, successfully] use it for more "laptop things" than I did the old one. Having a Smart Cover that props it up well for typing sure doesn't hurt any, either.
The best way of thinking about it that I've found: Did Flash games kill the PC gaming market? No. Will iOS/Android/etc games kill console games? No. Perhaps they'll encroach on the handheld market (PSP, 3DS), but I don't think they've got the same "depth" that most console and PC games do.
Don't get me wrong, it's a lucrative market to be in, and it seems much easier to break into for most developers (although indie PC gaming is also a good size scene) than traditional console/handheld development. I just really, really am not convinced that they'll kill off console games. I've never heard someone who's actually a more hardcore "gamer" entertain the notion, and that makes me think that most people making these claims don't understand the market for them whatsoever.
Personally I think historically one of the problems with Flash games was getting paid. Most people would love the revenue stream from an ad supported version of Bejeweled... but what else in Flash games is there that makes money?
There's farming games on Facebook I guess, but to read the devs blogs you'd think it was a never ending series of the playing field being moved all the time, and dodgy APIs.
To monetize their skills most of the Flash devs I know went to work for ad agencies, or switched to a different language and Flash became a hobby.
I think this is one of the "eleven secret herbs and spices" of iOS development, why they had an absolutely massive number of devs and apps, because there was this pent up demand from the indie devs, and no really good or easy way to fulfill it.
--
You say "perhaps they (the iOS and Android games) will encroach on the handheld market (PSP, 3DS)"
I'm confused, didn't that already happen? Haven't the handhelds been in a death spiral since the iPod Touch took off big time?
I fully agree that the iPad will increasingly encroach on the console games market. That may sound crazy but hear me out.
1. Already the graphics on the iPad 2 are pretty good. I would argue they're sufficiently good and only getting better (with better software and successive generations of hardware);
2. 3D realism has I think overshot the mark. Nintendo has proven--and continues to proven--that you don't need the latest and greatest 3D engine to sell consoles and games. Remember too that many people are nostalgic about arcade games and systems from the 80s and 90s;
3. Increased realism in games has really blown out art costs. I would argue that art now constitutes the majority of even big budget titles. The more realistic games get the higher this cost. Improved tooling has mitigated this somewhat but the cost continues to rise.
There is significant economic incentive for game producers to curtail art costs by developing on lower-spec platforms.
3. The iPad is a multi-purpose device so, ultimately, more people are likely to buy it or devices like it than consoles (IMHO). Console makers continue to stretch the capabilities of consoles (adding VoD services like Netflix, etc) but ultimately it's still a TV. The iPad is a computer (albeit one with limitations). This will however take time.
I've been saying for the last year--and I continue to say--Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft should all be scared about the iPad.
You missed the biggest reason... cost of games is much cheaper. Even the Wii, with lower end titles, still cost much more than iPad games.
The big problem with the iPad is that it is not an enjoyable multiuser experience yet. Nothing beats having friends over and playing Madden on a big TV. This is one reason why I think PC gaming never really took off in a big way. Playing a game on a PC is basically an isolated experience (mitigated by online play).
This is one reason why I think PC gaming never really took off in a big way.
We must be living in different worlds. I've seen PC gaming surpass movies as the dominant cultural product with ease, and at least in this part of the world (east Asia), no console game comes even remotely close to pulling down the revenues that World of Warcraft does or getting the TV time or tournaments that Starcraft II does.
"The big problem with the iPad is that it is not an enjoyable multiuser experience yet. Nothing beats having friends over and playing Madden on a big TV."
I suspect Apple have plans for iPads, iPhones, AppleTV's, and your big plasma that'll make the Wii/PlayStation/XBox look positively primitive.
This maybe true, but only in certain markets. I don't see many parents being convinced to part with the $ for an iPad for presents when a DS or PSP type item is around.
Though the games are indeed more expensive the up-front cost is a major player in decision making for leisure time purchasing.
Big problem with IPad games is that most of them are junk :o there is really no comparison to good DS stuff, xbox or PS3. There was a good keynote from the Nintendo at the GDC, situation with junk games now is getting dangerously close to the Great Video Game crash of 1983
Playing multi-player games on multiple iPads (or iPhones or iPod Touches) isn't at all bad. I've had quite a few fun times with friends playing games this way.
Looking at the same screen works well for some games, but not so well for others.
As for the cost, they are cheaper but I don't necessarily see that as being structural. What I mean is that that there is that as capabilities expand, so will what producers can do with that platform. The cost will go up with this. This will, in part, be mitigated by increasing market size.
Or possibly publishers will finally learn that if games are cheap people will buy more of them, a lesson that has been consistently proven true from Steam price cuts (where selling a game for $5 made more than the original IIRC).
The second good point you make, which I missed, is the multi-user aspect of games like Madden. This is mainly because I've never been this way inclined. I haven't been much of a console gamer at all really. I'm more of a PC gamer that likes turn-based strategy games.
But I have bought and played a plethora of "casual" games on my iPad (and now iPad 2).
I see tablets as being fundamentally personal devices, not really something you play a game on with multiple people (unless they each have their own).
Still I see a huge potential market for games like Madden where each person has their own tablet as a control.
What about where the Apple TV (a future iteration) plays one view and each player has their own control so it looks like a real football game?
I know of several startups working on ipad 2 games that uses the ipod touch or iphone as the other controller. Or even THE controller. It's actually pretty cool.
The one I played made me think ... WOW ... goodbye console wars.
I was at an airport a few years ago and the plane was delayed. A mother pulled out her iphone, gave it to her kid and said he if he wanted another game he could only spend $1. The kid was entertained for the next hour while we all waited for the plane. I knew then that dedicated portable consoles were dead.
Summary: There might be some killer idea out there, but it seemed you could always do better without the TV. Also that in person (like football) multiplayer or coop tablet games are an untapped market.
I would argue that art now constitutes the majority of even big budget titles.
Big budget titles seem to spend the majority of their budget on marketing and promotion. I was astonished by ~40-50mm (development) vs ~200mm (marketing) figures for Modern Warfare 2 (http://www.thatvideogameblog.com/2009/11/19/modern-warfare-2...). Even if other titles' budgets aren't that skewed, it's still a huge ratio.
Careful with marketing numbers. I believe they're a common way of essentially hiding profits. Hollywood studios do this sort of thing all the time. Before you can say they spent that much on marketing you need to know exactly how much money went to whom and for what.
Those big budget games you're talking about make a gagillion dollars every time they get released. The iPad will never touch that market because the controls aren't nearly as good.
If Apple wanted to get serious about challenging console games, they could make their own Bluetooth gamepad and push out a small software update to support it.
You could put the iPad on a table or hook up the output to a TV and play it like any console. All you need is the controller and a driver.
I don't know about this. Hook up a &500 iPad to power and to your TV and pair it with the bt gamepad every time you want to play a console game? As opposed to a <$300 device that's always hooked up to the TV and controllers?
I'd say the Apple TV is a much better contender for this market. But still isn't really technically able to push the blow-out titles that the gp is talking about. Not even close, since both the iPad and ATV are on low power ARM processors, while modern high end consoles are basically full-fledged desktop PCs.
Most people nowadays probably buy a $500 laptop and a $200-300 game console. What if you could replace both of those devices with a dockable iPad that runs around $600 ($500 for the iPad and $100 for the dock and controllers).
Sure, it's not going to be as good as a $299 PS3, but it will be much better than the PS3 at things like email, browsing the web, and doing computer related functions. When you get home, drop it in the dock and watch Netflix, or play some games.
I don't think $100 is enough of a disparity to get the market we're talking about even vaguely interested. Especially since the titles we're talking about (I think we're talking about stuff like the Modern Warfare games) simply aren't feasible on an ARM proc yet.
That's a really interesting question, but I don't think Apple's going to be the company to take gaming in that direction. Their cloud services are pretty lackluster. I have an ATV, and I only ever use it for Netflix streaming.
They're already there, all you really need is the ability to stream H.264 and monitor input events. What isn't there is consumer internet connections, most people won't be able to have an enjoyable experience.
Not so soon. I hear PS3 is looking into going with Android. So email, browsing and TV integration will change. Sony is already doing the PSP with Android.
While the iPad improves, consoles/PCs will also improve, but you nail it by questioning whether people want it enough to pay more for it (another wii-like example is the popularity of casual flash games); and that prices will increase due to art costs (absent unforeseen algorithmic generation techniques...), which would seem to be limited by cinematic quality. If so, when the iPad matches that, there will be no reason to get a console/PC for gaming (assuming HDMI & controller sockets).
As disruptive as onlive seems to be it's basically low latency vnc for gaming and where the iPad keeps breaking sale records, onlive is growing slowly. Unsure why it isn't taking off more
Your point 2 acknowledges that Nintendo has a different strategy than Sony and Microsoft, but you included them in the list of companies to be scared. Points 1 and 3 could also be used to explain why Nintendo has sold so many DS and Wiis.
What more info do you need? If it wasn't obvious, you are supposed to open your site in the Opera browser, making sure Javascript is turned on. You'll see how it just can't load.
Sitting in Europe (ping time 107 ms to your site), using Opera 11.01 on Windows XP I see the behavior joe_bleau described -- in the URL bar there's constant reloading visible when Javascript is turned on.
I just had the same problem (redirect loop), but not on your page, I hit it on the link next to yours on the front page: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2350430. Maybe he confused the two?
Potential market for people willing to shell over $40 for a game?
Potential market for people willing to try on a whim that bird game the whole office has been talking about?
Serious gamers will probably always stick with the most advanced gameplay and technology. But there is a _huge_ market for people who have a few minutes to kill on trips, during commute, in front of the tv etc. As games are increasingly made with cognitive reward cycles in mind, one could argue, that the percentage of people who never play will shrink ever more.
But that (quite rightly) speaks of a new market for people willing to try some bird game on a whim: not a replacement for other gaming experiences that mobile is a long way from challenging.
It's Nintendo's hold of the portable market with this week's 3DS that seems most tenable and vulnerable to the proliferation of gaming on phones and tablets; I think we're a long way off of MSFT being worried about the 360.
"I would separate out the true independent developer vs. the hobbyist," says Fils-Aime. "We are absolutely reaching out to the independent developer."
"Where we've drawn the line is we are not looking to do business today with the garage developer. In our view, that’s not a business we want to pursue."
Those big budget games also cost a gagillion dollars to make. My buddy worked at EA for a year. He would tell me stories of how they can spend over $50 million on a game and it makes $52 million worldwide. And EA is a billion dollar company. They consider that at best a break-even game and possibly a loser.
That same buddy now works at Microsoft. Do you realize that MS doesn't make money on hardware, on the xbox units themselves? I think they just started breaking even on the hardware in the last few months with that. That's 6 years of a top-selling product that they have lost money on. Meanwhile, they make something like $1.5 billion a year just on Xbox Live subscriptions, and more money on the licensing fees for games. I don't have any numbers for that.
There have been 47.9 million Playstation 3's sold since November 2006 (http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html). Taken separately, the 2 popular consoles have taken 5-6 years to rival the number of units sold by Apple in a little over a year. If we take into account the number of iPhones and iPod Touches sold in previous years, its a safe comparison to say that Apple alone has an equal or larger number of units sold compared to consoles, at least in shear numbers. To top that off, estimates are that iPads alone will push 50 million by the end of the year, and who knows how many iPhone 5's will sell when it launches.
So the market almost always wins. Developers go where the money is. On the one hand you have the existing console market that has, for the sake of argument, 100 million units worldwide. On the other, you have the iOS combined platform of roughly the same or more number of shear units.
Consoles:
1) Expensive games ~$60 USD
2) Locked into your house. e.g. You can only play in front of your tv.
3) Limited utility, games, movies
4) Better controls for first person shooters. Crappy controls for Angry birds.
5) Amazing, if expensive, graphics. Sometimes. In fact, lots of $60 games kind of look like crap.
iOS (iPhones, iPads, iPod touches):
1) Inexpensive games $0.99-$10 (averages)
2) Portable. Can take it anywhere
3) Lots of utility. Phone calls, text messages, games, camera, video, GPS, shopping, movies, music, etc.
4) Crappy controls for first person shooters. Perfect controls for Angry Birds.
5) Median graphics. Not Crysis or Farcry level. But high-level of quality control and the best games look pretty good.
There's a lot of other reasons I can go into, but basically I'm trying to demonstrate that "better controls" have nothing to do with it. Better graphics have little to do with it. You can buy like 10-20 games on your iPhone and/or iPad instead of 1 game on your xbox or playstation. And you can take them with you anywhere. And the market is a hell of a lot bigger, so you can sell more $5 games than you can $50 games.
1) Its cheaper to develop for iPhones/iPads/Android devices than consoles
2) There's more iPhones/iPads/Androids out there to sell to. Lots of people that aren't interested in consoles buy smart phones and tablets. Everyone loves to play games.
3) MUCH lower barrier to entry to make apps and games for iOS and Android then Xbox or Playstation.
I think that supports his point. PCs have better controls and (high end ones have) better graphics than consoles. Despite this, more games are sold for consoles, and developers target them.
The same effect can occur for iOS devices - and their graphics will get better each year (9 times faster this year...)
I think the moral of the story is that there is no point in going gaga over the numbers that hardware manufacturers serve up unless and until you can get your hands on the actual device (whether that be phone, netbook, CPU, GPU or plain old desktop) and try it out for yourself.
I think this is a problem that has long been embedded in tech journalism. We go all breathless over an extra 10% mega this or giga that, but 99% of the time that extra 10% doesn't matter.
But if they weren't getting excited over the latest fraction of an increment, what would they report on?
Graphics? Yes it's better (in fact better than all other tablets) but were you really able to see the difference. What about the average folks? Do you think they will be able to see the difference. I am picky but not that picky.
Duo Core? Big deal. Many other tablets are featuring the same. The one I played with at Best Buy had all the popular apps loaded. Angry Bird was not so smooth with swipe action. Home screen swipe was fine. Still not so buttery to me.
Thinner? Yes but it's not as impressive as Kindle or Nook. If it was that thinner I would be like oh yea.
2 cameras? Isn't this about time? Apple is behind on this. Most of the Android tablets had them from day one.
Having said all that, it is still a nice toy. It definitely changed our mobile experience. Netbooks look so dead or even Laptops look so outdated compared to the tablets these days. I don't see it as a game machine. Instead, it will be another entertaining in it's space. We will browse sites, take notes, look up howtos, share stories, photos, videos, listen to audio books and read books to our kids like never before. Android or something similar will lead the market space eventually unless Apple becomes open. However, iPad will still be seen as the trend setter for a while.