The last fortnight has been an examination of the wheres and the whys that form the basis of professional gaming. Of course, every now and again, it doesn’t hurt to remind ourselves that what actually underpins the basis of eSports is the tournaments themselves.
It’s not the prize pool posted at Major League Gaming’s tournaments, or the winnings gamers take home from Electronic Sports World Cup or World Cyber Games events, but the mentality that players take on the bus, train, in their cars or the airplane on their way to their matches.
Put simply, eSports isn’t just professional gaming. It’s the attitude that flows among the hundreds of people sitting in bitterly uncomfortable seats, annoying their girlfriends who are growing callouses on their rear because their partner wants to watch IdrA or Roy dominate the competition. It’s the chill people get down their spine when the last man defending the bomb gets fragged through three walls on the back of de_train.
It’s also the vigour people get when they get out of bed and think about build orders, or the excitement a gamer feels when all he can think about on the train home is a long night of smashing people in FIFA.
Showing posts with label app research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label app research. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Gamefly vs. Blockbuster vs. Redbox vs. Gamestop?
As I'm sure many of us are well aware gaming is not cheap. With games costing $60 no one wants to waste their hard earned cash on a terrible game. There are some cheaper alternatives to getting to play the games you want without having to pay full price. I'm going to talk about some services and the pros and cons of each one.
GAMEFLY
This is probably the biggest of the renting services around. With no late fees and over 7,000 titles it sounds like a great deal. For the most part it is. I've been a gamefly member for a little over a year and never once thought it wasn’t worth the money. I play 10x the amount of games that I did when I was buying games and have saved roughly 1/3 of what I spent per year before it. The only real reason I can boast this is because I don't care what I play. I just enjoy playing the games. However Gamefly does have its problems. With such a large fan base it's difficult to get any new release games. The games are down to VERY LOW QUANTITY (<25%)almost as soon as they appear on the site for rent and some times you will be waiting up to 5-6 months or longer before you can get one. Up till about 2 months ago COD:MW2 was still at LOW Quantity (25%). It also seems like sometimes they just decide to leave out older games. FF6 (gba) for example never moves above Medium (50%) quantity and almost always stays at VERY LOW quantity. If you don't really care what you play that Gamefly is definitely a good idea.
Pros: Lot's of games to choose from. No late fees. Free shipping, and up to 10% off all games.
Cons: Lots of people=Low quantity of new games. Abandonment of older games.
BLOCKBUSTER
Blockbuster started their online rental service not to long ago. They priced it cheaper than Gamefly and offer movies as well. However they only have 3000 titles where Gamefly has 7000. With Blockbuster being focused mostly on movies gaming seems like a second thought, and it shows. Almost ever game has Low Quantity, with some games like Mass Effect 2 for ps3 not even being shipped to Blockbusters online service until October. Another thing about this service is the 5 in store switches. You can take the game you’re renting into any Blockbuster store 5 times a month and switch it with any game there. The problem with this (and this may just be where I live) is that Blockbuster has a relatively small selection games in stores. So again it seems like this service is aimed at movies with games tacked on. The best thing about this service is that you can keep any game you like 25% off. That's awesome. However with Blockbuster going out of business it's not clear how long this service will continue, or if it will improve much.
GAMEFLY
This is probably the biggest of the renting services around. With no late fees and over 7,000 titles it sounds like a great deal. For the most part it is. I've been a gamefly member for a little over a year and never once thought it wasn’t worth the money. I play 10x the amount of games that I did when I was buying games and have saved roughly 1/3 of what I spent per year before it. The only real reason I can boast this is because I don't care what I play. I just enjoy playing the games. However Gamefly does have its problems. With such a large fan base it's difficult to get any new release games. The games are down to VERY LOW QUANTITY (<25%)almost as soon as they appear on the site for rent and some times you will be waiting up to 5-6 months or longer before you can get one. Up till about 2 months ago COD:MW2 was still at LOW Quantity (25%). It also seems like sometimes they just decide to leave out older games. FF6 (gba) for example never moves above Medium (50%) quantity and almost always stays at VERY LOW quantity. If you don't really care what you play that Gamefly is definitely a good idea.
Pros: Lot's of games to choose from. No late fees. Free shipping, and up to 10% off all games.
Cons: Lots of people=Low quantity of new games. Abandonment of older games.
BLOCKBUSTER
Blockbuster started their online rental service not to long ago. They priced it cheaper than Gamefly and offer movies as well. However they only have 3000 titles where Gamefly has 7000. With Blockbuster being focused mostly on movies gaming seems like a second thought, and it shows. Almost ever game has Low Quantity, with some games like Mass Effect 2 for ps3 not even being shipped to Blockbusters online service until October. Another thing about this service is the 5 in store switches. You can take the game you’re renting into any Blockbuster store 5 times a month and switch it with any game there. The problem with this (and this may just be where I live) is that Blockbuster has a relatively small selection games in stores. So again it seems like this service is aimed at movies with games tacked on. The best thing about this service is that you can keep any game you like 25% off. That's awesome. However with Blockbuster going out of business it's not clear how long this service will continue, or if it will improve much.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Financial woes - Did 3rd party Devs create their own monster?
User blog
A monopoly is never a good thing in any industry.As Sony prepared to launch its PS3 many moons ago, many devlopers saw them as being on the verge of achieving just that. The PS2 is a resounding success, the full extent of which is yet to be tabulated. For sony to enter another cycle with the support they had for the ps2, would have left many developers having to depend on the policies of a single company. This was not an ideal situation for them.
When sony announced the launch of their $600 baby, they saw their opportunity to level the field. The Xbox 360 had a great launch in the US, and many saw this time as an opportunity to loosen the stranglehold that Sony had on the industry. Decisions were made that raised many eyebrows, which included the exclusive launch of JRPGs on the xbox...in Japan no less.
The intention was clear. Third party devs were intent on creating a power structure that suited them. Where each player in the console market held equal power and where they had more bargaining power
In addition to this, when titles were launched on both consoles, the xbox version was better, with devs claiming difficulties working with the PS3 hardware. Things looked quite bleak for the PS3.
Sensing the opportunity, Microsoft began courting developers like never before. It proved to be a successful strategy for them. Sony, slow to change, continued their practices without fully appreciating the new need to chase publishers, accustomed
instead to it being the other way around.
By the time they did realize this, they had fallen behind, and changes had to be made. They copied the Microsoft strategy of courting and pursuing developers, but they also did something completely different.
While Microsoft closed first party studios, Sony acquired them at an alarming rate. Anyone who has read Machiavelli will know of his distaste for mercenaries. The logic is simple. They have loyalty to only the highest bidder, and to themselves. They hence can abandon you quickly, with very little warning.
In their rise to power, sony depended heavily on 3rd parties, who had now left them in the lurch with 2 recently launched consoles (psp).The troops were rallied around the ps3, while the psp was left in temporary limbo. They clearly had to protect themselves from a repeat.
Sony has since acquired many studios with 2 apparent aims. The first is to wean themselves off the 3rd party dependency. The other was to create games that unequivocally demonstrated the superiority of their hardware and restore its battered reputation. Today, with the first party lineup of 2011 and titles like GOW3 and Uncharted under their belt, sony has achieved this.
Now, with the revitalized 1st party studios in motion, third party devs have lost both reputation and income on the PS3. Their nonchalant attitude in the past has left many ps3 gamers with a "first party first" attitude to their buying habits.
This is eerily similar to the attitudes on Nintendo platforms where 3rd party devs notoriously suffer.
In Short, they created a monster, that monster being Sony first party studios, which they must now compete with to survive. The languishing mutliplat sales on the PS3 for this year indicate that they may be a long way away from being able to do this.
A monopoly is never a good thing in any industry.As Sony prepared to launch its PS3 many moons ago, many devlopers saw them as being on the verge of achieving just that. The PS2 is a resounding success, the full extent of which is yet to be tabulated. For sony to enter another cycle with the support they had for the ps2, would have left many developers having to depend on the policies of a single company. This was not an ideal situation for them.
When sony announced the launch of their $600 baby, they saw their opportunity to level the field. The Xbox 360 had a great launch in the US, and many saw this time as an opportunity to loosen the stranglehold that Sony had on the industry. Decisions were made that raised many eyebrows, which included the exclusive launch of JRPGs on the xbox...in Japan no less.
The intention was clear. Third party devs were intent on creating a power structure that suited them. Where each player in the console market held equal power and where they had more bargaining power
In addition to this, when titles were launched on both consoles, the xbox version was better, with devs claiming difficulties working with the PS3 hardware. Things looked quite bleak for the PS3.
Sensing the opportunity, Microsoft began courting developers like never before. It proved to be a successful strategy for them. Sony, slow to change, continued their practices without fully appreciating the new need to chase publishers, accustomed
instead to it being the other way around.
By the time they did realize this, they had fallen behind, and changes had to be made. They copied the Microsoft strategy of courting and pursuing developers, but they also did something completely different.
While Microsoft closed first party studios, Sony acquired them at an alarming rate. Anyone who has read Machiavelli will know of his distaste for mercenaries. The logic is simple. They have loyalty to only the highest bidder, and to themselves. They hence can abandon you quickly, with very little warning.
In their rise to power, sony depended heavily on 3rd parties, who had now left them in the lurch with 2 recently launched consoles (psp).The troops were rallied around the ps3, while the psp was left in temporary limbo. They clearly had to protect themselves from a repeat.
Sony has since acquired many studios with 2 apparent aims. The first is to wean themselves off the 3rd party dependency. The other was to create games that unequivocally demonstrated the superiority of their hardware and restore its battered reputation. Today, with the first party lineup of 2011 and titles like GOW3 and Uncharted under their belt, sony has achieved this.
Now, with the revitalized 1st party studios in motion, third party devs have lost both reputation and income on the PS3. Their nonchalant attitude in the past has left many ps3 gamers with a "first party first" attitude to their buying habits.
This is eerily similar to the attitudes on Nintendo platforms where 3rd party devs notoriously suffer.
In Short, they created a monster, that monster being Sony first party studios, which they must now compete with to survive. The languishing mutliplat sales on the PS3 for this year indicate that they may be a long way away from being able to do this.
Mobile Gaming. The way of the Future?
Many times when we think of video games we traditionally think of gaming consoles, but what if the future of gaming is to be decided by the handheld market?
Console games are great due to the engaging games, stylish graphics, and dedicated hardware, but are we seeing a shift towards the portable gaming console? I think so.
"Mobile gaming is projected to be a large market in the coming years and this has led to its identification as a “hot” VC segment. (The Video Game Industry, Nick Shah pg. 2)" http://www.tuck.dartmouth.e...
Mobile gaming is starting to gain ground due to a few reasons;
1st. The hardware is advancing significantly. This is evident with NGP and the 3DS. The NGP can put out some hefty graphics, at least from what we've seen from screenshots. The 3DS supports native 3D without the use of glasses, a feat not yet possible on larger gaming consoles. And now with the introduction of Tablets people have even more portable gaming sources. A survey done by Google shows that 84% of all Tablet owners use their Tablet for playing games. http://www.guardian.co.uk/t... And as tablet Hardware increases the games on these Tablets will increase. http://www.youtube.com/watc... or http://www.gizmocrunch.com/...
2nd. They're cheaper. This is a biggie for developers. It costs less money to develop and publish a game for a portable console than it costs to develop for a home console. http://www.1up.com/news/3ds... I 3DS game costs around 1.8 million to develop where a Wii game costs 5-7million. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wi... (See attached picture below). Because they are cheaper to develop it means they are cheaper to sell as well. The average price of a PSP game is 30-40 dollars. Somewhere around 20-30 dollars cheaper than a console game.
3rd. They're portable. Portability is key here. I'm a college student. I go to a school that is around 45 minutes away from where I live. My class schedule often has 2-3hour breaks in between classes. So what do I do? I'm not going to drive back to my house play video games for an hour and drive back to school. That would be a waste of gas. Instead I mostly write and rewrite these blogs, or play my PSP. This is where the portable generation really makes it move. Most of us are like me, maybe not the school situation but the not having time to go home. We have long bus rides to work, free time while on break, free time in between classes ext. During these times we can pull out or 3DS or our PSP and play some games. The Portable market is aiming towards us with limited time on our hands. It's much easier to pull out a PSP and play for 10-15 mins than it is to sit in front of a TV and play for 10-15 mins.
These are three reasons why the Gaming industry may become the future of gaming. But what does it need to do to get there?
1. More developers.
It only took how long, six years, for the PSP to get some people who really understood how it worked to make some really good games for it. That can't happen. If the portable generation wants to take over the developers NEED to know how to work with the hardware that is available.
2. Easy online.
The 3DS and the DS have this, kind of (friend codes, *cringe*). The have an easier online than the PSP does. For the life of me I cannot understand why you can't play online games using the PSP's online connection. Instead you have to use the adhoc connection in a PS3. But it's not that simple. In order for adhoc to work your PS3 must be connected with a LAN cable. My house is completely wireless. The only thing connected to a LAN cable is the Router that powers the Wireless. I don't have any more LAN cables and am not going to go buy any. Why must my PS3 be connected by a LAN cable to use adhoc? But more importantly why can't my PSP just connect to the Wi-Fi and play online? The 3DS can do it. This is something that needs to be remedied before the portable generation can succeed.
3. Internal Memory
The DS and the 3DS have a small amount of this allocated for download games but most of the games are still bought in physical media. Let me ask this question. If I can buy an iPod with 80 gigs in it, why can't I buy a PSP like that as well? Before you say "There was the PSP Go." I realize it had 16 gigs, but it lacked the ability to play physical media. The portable generation needs to have both internal memory and physical media.
If the portable developers can do these things with the portable market it could easily surpass the home market. Are you game for the portable market?
Console games are great due to the engaging games, stylish graphics, and dedicated hardware, but are we seeing a shift towards the portable gaming console? I think so.
"Mobile gaming is projected to be a large market in the coming years and this has led to its identification as a “hot” VC segment. (The Video Game Industry, Nick Shah pg. 2)" http://www.tuck.dartmouth.e...
Mobile gaming is starting to gain ground due to a few reasons;
1st. The hardware is advancing significantly. This is evident with NGP and the 3DS. The NGP can put out some hefty graphics, at least from what we've seen from screenshots. The 3DS supports native 3D without the use of glasses, a feat not yet possible on larger gaming consoles. And now with the introduction of Tablets people have even more portable gaming sources. A survey done by Google shows that 84% of all Tablet owners use their Tablet for playing games. http://www.guardian.co.uk/t... And as tablet Hardware increases the games on these Tablets will increase. http://www.youtube.com/watc... or http://www.gizmocrunch.com/...
2nd. They're cheaper. This is a biggie for developers. It costs less money to develop and publish a game for a portable console than it costs to develop for a home console. http://www.1up.com/news/3ds... I 3DS game costs around 1.8 million to develop where a Wii game costs 5-7million. http://vgsales.wikia.com/wi... (See attached picture below). Because they are cheaper to develop it means they are cheaper to sell as well. The average price of a PSP game is 30-40 dollars. Somewhere around 20-30 dollars cheaper than a console game.
3rd. They're portable. Portability is key here. I'm a college student. I go to a school that is around 45 minutes away from where I live. My class schedule often has 2-3hour breaks in between classes. So what do I do? I'm not going to drive back to my house play video games for an hour and drive back to school. That would be a waste of gas. Instead I mostly write and rewrite these blogs, or play my PSP. This is where the portable generation really makes it move. Most of us are like me, maybe not the school situation but the not having time to go home. We have long bus rides to work, free time while on break, free time in between classes ext. During these times we can pull out or 3DS or our PSP and play some games. The Portable market is aiming towards us with limited time on our hands. It's much easier to pull out a PSP and play for 10-15 mins than it is to sit in front of a TV and play for 10-15 mins.
These are three reasons why the Gaming industry may become the future of gaming. But what does it need to do to get there?
1. More developers.
It only took how long, six years, for the PSP to get some people who really understood how it worked to make some really good games for it. That can't happen. If the portable generation wants to take over the developers NEED to know how to work with the hardware that is available.
2. Easy online.
The 3DS and the DS have this, kind of (friend codes, *cringe*). The have an easier online than the PSP does. For the life of me I cannot understand why you can't play online games using the PSP's online connection. Instead you have to use the adhoc connection in a PS3. But it's not that simple. In order for adhoc to work your PS3 must be connected with a LAN cable. My house is completely wireless. The only thing connected to a LAN cable is the Router that powers the Wireless. I don't have any more LAN cables and am not going to go buy any. Why must my PS3 be connected by a LAN cable to use adhoc? But more importantly why can't my PSP just connect to the Wi-Fi and play online? The 3DS can do it. This is something that needs to be remedied before the portable generation can succeed.
3. Internal Memory
The DS and the 3DS have a small amount of this allocated for download games but most of the games are still bought in physical media. Let me ask this question. If I can buy an iPod with 80 gigs in it, why can't I buy a PSP like that as well? Before you say "There was the PSP Go." I realize it had 16 gigs, but it lacked the ability to play physical media. The portable generation needs to have both internal memory and physical media.
If the portable developers can do these things with the portable market it could easily surpass the home market. Are you game for the portable market?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)