50 years of video game revenue

[T4rd]

Lol, typical [H] turning this into a PCMR discussion, with all the usual extremely biased suspects as well.

Funny to think that we have to pick sides as well. As if many of us don't game on multiple platforms. At least I play on literally every platform including mobile occasionally. I love gaming on PC for FPS games for the most part, and consoles for most other genres and for local multiplayer with the family.

 

[DukenukemX]

While I agree that most of the revenue coming out of mobile is gacha, there are tons of real games now available on iOS, including full blown desktop ports. To say nothing of console ports.

Is this an iOS thing for you or just mobile in general?

DoS2, Civ VI, Alien Isolation, RE:4 Remake, RE:Village, XCom 1/2. SE's entire library is basically on iOS at this point - every remaster from the PS era and before. Including hard to get titles like Valkyria Chronicles and Romancing Saga. It's also becoming a place to port vintage titles of all types or make remakes or indie. Like Under a Steel Sky, KOTOR 1/2, Dead Cells, Shovel Knight, Darkest Dungeon, GTA: III/Vice City/San Andreas, etc.

You wanna add games like Zork, Breakout, Super Breakout,..... Photoshop. The problem you're overlooking is that iOS can not run emulators. Particularly Switch emulators which you can do on Android.

View: https://youtu.be/zNlMtYf17Zc?si=qQNpPbn79ZiXFsBx

Because of Apple's investments in particular, it's starting to become a real platform. I've been doing my own testing on RE:4 and Village (noted in the Apple subforum) and the games are indistinguishable from PC. It's serious enough the DF even bothered to do multiple videos examining both on various Apple platforms (the relevant portion here being iOS and not macOS, but also macOS).

It's not indistingquishable. MetalFX as DF put it, looks worse than FSR 1.0. They also pointed out that the game "crashes" at some point when settings are set the max, which I think the iPhone is just shutting down the application due to thermal issues as we've seen in the past with iPhones. It's also something I've predicted would happen when Apple announced these games for iPhone 15 Pro+ devices. They did compare the Steam Deck to the iPhone 15 Pro max and the Deck was much better in performance with a higher resolution. As a reminder there's no Ray-Tracing in this game for iPhone's, so it's pretty much looking and running worse than the PS4 version.


View: https://youtu.be/3Q4iFrulpQE?si=w8dcF9C7SJwSmbqj

Anyway, I say that to say, especially with the recent full blown PC ports and SE ports, in some ways it's the best ways to experience those titles if you live any level of mobile lifestyle (which I know most people in the US don't, they don't get as an example that most people in a lot of Asian/European countries commute to work/school/whatever via public transportation and spend less time in general at home).

Places where mobile is popular won't be buying $1000+ phones to play Capcom games on them. You missed the part where people who game on mobile exclusively are not flush with money.

From a graphics and just gameplay perspective, my iPad Pro for sure is better than Switch or Steam Deck

Except in games like RE8 as DF pointed out.

- merely lacking the software aspect

Lacking a lot more than just software there.

And people with newly minted iPhone 15 Pros can get a Backbone One and play all of these titles on the go with RT.

Except RE8 doesn't have RT on iPhone.

I think that mobile is going to continue down this path though. Maybe hardcore people will continue to eschew it, but I think companies like Sony and Microsoft have more to fear from Apple and Google than they do each other or PC gaming.

That's a lot of copium I smell.

 

[M76]

Well, as the chart above shows, it already is.

If all you do is ignore everything I say including my original post, then there is no point to have this discussion. Just because something generates equal revenue doesn't give it equal value as a gaming platform. I explained why that is my position clearly in my first post, yet you keep pointing to revenue as some sort of gotcha. Now will you try again and give some real input on why you think what I said is not true?

I have nothing to say about your preferences. They are the best for you.

Gaming being better on a big screen with proper control devices is not a preference, it is objective fact. Nobody would choose going into a crowd to play games on a mobile phone if they had other options available and wasn't just using them as time wasters while they are commuting.

There are other people out there that like different things. It's why, apparently, people on the [H] didn't understand the Switch to begin with and see the fact that it's mobile as pointless, vs obviously a ton of people that use it for that purpose. To the point that there is a lower-cost mobile only Switch version that cannot be docked and used on a TV.

Good thing I said absolutely nothing about handheld consoles as my entire post was about phones.

Gaming on a mobile phone is just the newer logical extension of that form of gaming. Regardless of how you want to classify it.

No and I explained why already, if you refuse to engage with my points then it is the end of convo, this about as much time as I'm willing to waste arguing with a wall.

 

[M76]

Lol, typical [H] turning this into a PCMR discussion, with all the usual extremely biased suspects as well.

Funny to think that we have to pick sides as well. As if many of us don't game on multiple platforms. At least I play on literally every platform including mobile occasionally. I love gaming on PC for FPS games for the most part, and consoles for most other genres and for local multiplayer with the family.

The biased ones are those who claim all platforms are equal while dismissing all differences in hw, sw, and comfort between them. Not those who point out the differences.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

If all you do is ignore everything I say including my original post, then there is no point to have this discussion. Just because something generates equal revenue doesn't give it equal value as a gaming platform. I explained why that is my position clearly in my first post, yet you keep pointing to revenue as some sort of gotcha. Now will you try again and give some real input on why you think what I said is not true?

Okay you want me to give you the benefit and you don't want to do the same. I've addressed all your points more than once. Now, in fairness to you, I tend to go into quite a few points and I'm not necessarily direct, but fine.

I don't think mobile games, especially revenue from mobile games can even be mentioned on the same page as real games. Yes I'm implying that mobile games are in a sense not real games. Now hold your horses for a minute. That doesn't mean you can't be a real gamer while playing mobile games. I mean that most of mobile game consumers are not conscious the same way as desktop or couch gamers are.

I don't really think it's worth spending energy talking about this. If this is your hill to die on, that's fine.

I talk about this more below, but basically all you're doing is trying to take a generalization and apply it to a wide groups of people. I brought up Apple Arcade to you already. Apple Arcade are some-what simple games to be played on mobile devices (dependent really, some are complex), but not a single one of them has gatcha or pay to unlock features or ads. Every title in that entire ecosystem is a "real game". Including massive indie hits like Stardew Valley. I've mentioned this repeatedly. Apple Arcade subs is not an insubstantial subset of people. There are at least 70 million Arcade subs (Apple is tight lipped about how much each of their service has subs, and of course there are many Apple One subs where Arcade would also be bundled. In total services has nearly 190 million subs and brings in 20 billion a quarter). Microsoft can't even break 30 million subs for XBox Game Pass. Whether you want to acknowledge Apple as a real gaming platform or not, it simply is.

This is ignoring all of the console/PC ports. All the SE ports. All the devs that are making full games designed specifically for iOS. All the older PC games that also have been ported over.

Now if you are playing mobile games on a couch when nothing is preventing you from playing on PC or at least a console, then you need to have your brain examined.

There are tons of people that do this. They play a game on their phone while watching something on Netflix. There is nothing preventing them from flipping on their PS5 or loading up their laptop. Everything above is like an absurd image of people that they "must be" doing things a certain way just because you are.

But that digression aside, mobile games are designed as timewasters, when people have nothing better to do they start them up, and they get hooked, then comes the sinister part, they work like drugs, get people with lower willpower to unlock all the locked away content. It's literally designed like drugs. I'm not talking out of my ass, I checked out quite a few mobile games, and no matter what game it is, they share a common thread: predatory monetization. You get to play one level, and then either an ad pops up, offering you the option to pay to make it go away, or worse, it says to continue playing you need to buy access to the next level. Or you can pay for in-game character customization, or "boosters". Which is just code for paid cheating. No wonder revenue is up there, when they literally work like legal drugs. Give the first whiff for free, then demand more and more payment for the rest.

Okay, this has been addressed thoroughly.

I feel like all I'm doing is repeating myself, but Apple Arcade exists. It has literally zero of the features you describe in this entire paragraph. It's a monthly sub like XBox Game Pass and gives access to hundreds of thoroughly curated, iPhone optimized games. Including MFi support meaning that virtually all can be played with a controller (it's rare to not).

I've also talked multiple times about full games being ported to the system from companies like Capcom and Kojima. As well as Aspyr from many different devs (Aspyr is a company that specializing in porting). And also devs who specifically are making quality games for iOS.

You want to paint the whole market with one big brush.

I've spent time talking about real games and the potential that's there. And for some reason you're fixed on this idea that just because this is the way it is now, doesn't mean that it can't change in the future (that's even ignoring all the real games as mentioned above). To the point that you are the one that stated every console game being ported to mobile wouldn't change anything. Really? Every console game being on mobile with zero micro transactions and a single one time fee to play real games would change nothing? Especially considering everything I’m specifically talking about contains no gacha or micro transactions?

You're defining the structure in all aspects of that and you can't see even the remote possibility of a different one. Well, Apple does - as mentioned through Apple Arcade and building all of the background tools to make iOS a viable true gaming platform without ads, gatcha, or micro-transactions. I do. And I'm 100% certain that companies like Capcom that are investing into macOS/iOS will also be paying attention. Because mobile is a device that everyone has (as has been discussed endlessly) and it's a massive market they can make more money from their "real games" from. And it doesn't even require that much 'extra' work to port to either.

In stark contrast to this PC and console gaming requires a conscious and informed choice to get into, you don't just happen to buy a gaming PC or current gen console at random. And when you do you already know the games you are going to play, and there is no way in hell anyone will buy the hardware for some predatory microtransaction ridden garbage. So the high entry cost of the HW serves as kind of a gatekeeping mechanism for low tier garbage. I know, I know, predatory games also exist on PC, unfortunately, so this is not a mobile only problem, but I fully blame mobile for their existence. Like fortnite is made to have a laughably low HW requirement for the same reason, so even those with low tier office PCs can get in on the "fun".

This sentence doesn't even merit a response. You are hypocritical, but rather than actually address that and maybe change some of your thinking, because it's your beloved platform of choice you can hand-wave it away.

Never mind that some of the most popular PC games ever contain gacha and micro-transactions as you note. What is there even for me to say here?

TLDR: most of mobile game revenue comes from unwitting fools and children duped into getting hooked onto garbage tier games with predatory monetization, while most of console and PC game revenue comes from conscious consumers who just want to enjoy good games as a hobby.

Not even debatable. Will AW2 or CP2077 ever make more money than Apex, Fortnite, Counter-Strike, Valorant, Overwatch, PubG, any Moba like League, etc? In case the rhetorical question isn't clear, the answer is emphatically: no.
EDIT, added links, but based on even my basic searching and skimming, Apex is ahead of an absolute blockbuster like CP2077 by a factor of 5x. And a game like Fortnite is way ahead of CP2077 with revenue closer to 15x. Transaction gaming is obviously more profitable and is definitely here to stay on PC, despite however upset that makes you. Fornitetracker tracks 145 million players on Fortnite. And those are just the ones willingly being tracked. To put that number in perspective, CP2077 has sold roughly 25 million copies. That is just over 1/6th the player base of Fortnite. It's not even close. I would imagine the lifetime player stats on a game like CS is also multiples on a game like CP2077. And CP2077 by every definition is a massive release PC/Console blockbuster.
So your supposition that PC gamers are not "hooked on predatory monetization" and are "conscious consumers" is absolutely false. Both in size and money spent. I don't have the time, interest or inclination to figure out even remote player stats for those other games, but considering the revenue getting poured in, it is not some small anomaly in the player base.
Micro-transaction games leads by far in PC gaming in player base and revenue. You are absolutely wrong here via the data.

And again, what prevents people from not simply playing the games worth playing on mobile? Can you not see that it's also perhaps possible for people who want real games on mobile to now gain access to them? That just "perhaps" there is an untapped market that exists on mobile whether you want to address them or not that are not being served by shovelware and if there were games worth playing they would play them?

Gaming being better on a big screen with proper control devices is not a preference, it is objective fact. Nobody would choose going into a crowd to play games on a mobile phone if they had other options available and wasn't just using them as time wasters while they are commuting.

It's also objective fact that people buy laptops over buying desktop PC's. Including for gaming. Or are you now going to try and argue that "laptops don't count" just because it's a PC? To make my point clear, people are choosing the mobile PC option over the desktop option at a rate of ~ 3:1. That isn't counting the detachable keyboard tablets that this article notes. Then it's actually closer to 4:1. Despite whatever notions you have about "optimal".

Are we also to conclude that people who PC game don't know how to buy the correct device, or again do I need to address that "convenience" here actually matters? If people could teleport and wherever they are return home to do things in the most optimal way, you'd have a point. Turns out that regardless of gaming platform, the more mobile option is the ones that are getting chosen. But I also already addressed this above.

Good thing I said absolutely nothing about handheld consoles as my entire post was about phones.

It's artificial segmentation. You by your own arguments say that "no one would ever choose mobile over big displays, comfortable couches, and full sized peripherals". But now you want to just hand wave an entire segment of gaming devices because they don't fit your narrative?

Either people want to game wherever they are or they don't. And it's stupid to play this semantics game that a handheld PC or the Switch "isn't gaming on the go" and a "mobile phone is". Really what even is your argument there? And again, this is also to say nothing of laptops.

No and I explained why already, if you refuse to engage with my points then it is the end of convo, this about as much time as I'm willing to waste arguing with a wall.

I would say the same. Most of your arguments are about trying to pigeonhole people or just straight up insult them.
According to you everyone who games on a laptop should want to get their head checked. And before you say: "I didn't say that", you essentially did because it doesn't fit into your gaming at home with the largest input devices or whatever narrative. Anything that doesn't fit into this "best/optimal" category which only you get to define is somehow "doing it wrong".

I've explained more than once, in so many ways, that convenience matters. That people want to play games regardless of platform. That there isn't artificial segmentation that your purport there is. And that just because bad games exist, it doesn't prevent the good ones from also existing.

So if you don't want to actually have a discussion, because it doesn't seem like you do, feel free to move on.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

The biased ones are those who claim all platforms are equal while dismissing all differences in hw, sw, and comfort between them. Not those who point out the differences.

The biased ones are the ones pushing the narrative that they know best for any and all consumers and any actual data to the contrary is "wrong".

Or do we need to talk about sales data:
Laptops > Desktop PC
Mobile > All PC combined

Or the Steam Deck and handheld PC's existing. Or the Nintendo Switch. While handheld PC longevity is in question, the success of the rest are not. People are continuing to choose the most convenient, most mobile option of almost all options. The only sales point that is truly "not that way" is the PS5 (but even Sony made this, you know another peripheral that doesn’t fit into your “most optimal” narrative). XBox is dying and Gamepass is going to hit those laptop people the most.

 

[T4rd]

The biased ones are those who claim all platforms are equal while dismissing all differences in hw, sw, and comfort between them. Not those who point out the differences.

I only skimmed and CTRL+F'd for "equal" because the whole debate is way past played out, but I don't think anyone is claiming they're all equal. It seems we're just seeing the same issue that plagues enthusiasts for any other hobby; they develop their own preferences and biases to the point that they can't concede anything else is comparable or even better in any aspect. It's the same kind of discussion you see in Apple vs PC/Android, ICE vs EV vehicles, and even between brands here like AMD vs Nvidia/Intel.

Of course, I have my own strong preferences in these things, like I have even expressed my abhorrence for Apple to others, but I can still recognize their clear advantages in certain areas and use cases. So it's funny when I see others refuse to accept that consoles and even mobile gaming can have their own advantages over PC gaming, and then resort to directly or indirectly insulting those who play games on anything else. And also make sweeping generalizations about them, as if all the games and people who play them are the same.

 

[DukenukemX]

The biased ones are the ones pushing the narrative that they know best for any and all consumers and any actual data to the contrary is "wrong".

Or do we need to talk about sales data:
Laptops > Desktop PC
Mobile > All PC combined

Everyone I know that has to play games on a laptop over their desktop, hates it. Everyone who uses a touchscreen over a gamepad, hates it. Why do people buy laptops more than Desktops? Probably because their living situation doesn't make owning a Desktop easy to deal with. Why is mobile so popular? Because everyone does indeed have a phone. How many games were sold on mobile? Probably not a lot, but how many games were sold on console+PC? Probably a lot. How about micro-transactions? It's probably flipped in favor of mobile. Mobile gamers are not the same audience as console+PC gamers. Grandma will play Candy Crush all day but you'll never see her play Resident Evil Village.

While handheld PC longevity is in question, the success of the rest are not.

There are more companies releasing handheld PC's and you question it? Yet China is cracking down on gotcha games and Tencent had their stock drop as a result. Without gotcha games you'd have no mobile gaming market. If enough laws get passed by other countries I could see mobile gaming more in jeopardy than PC.

 

[M76]

Okay you want me to give you the benefit and you don't want to do the same.

I actually went through all your points one by one, until I snapped when for the nth time you went back to repeating the same thing I already addressed in my first post before you even replied for the first time.

I've addressed all your points more than once. Now, in fairness to you, I tend to go into quite a few points and I'm not necessarily direct, but fine.

Sure if by "addressed" you mean repeating the same statistical non-arguments again and again.

I don't really think it's worth spending energy talking about this. If this is your hill to die on, that's fine.

Meaningless rhetoric, what am I to make of this?

I talk about this more below, but basically all you're doing is trying to take a generalization and apply it to a wide groups of people.

If the glove fits it fits, simply denying the trends I pointed out won't prove that they aren't true.

I brought up Apple Arcade to you already. Apple Arcade are some-what simple games to be played on mobile devices (dependent really, some are complex), but not a single one of them has gatcha or pay to unlock features or ads.

The existence of games that are not shovelware on mobile does not refute the claim that most of the revenue comes from shovelware. I already pointed out that I played ports of proper games on mobile phones as far back as 2006.

Every title in that entire ecosystem is a "real game". Including massive indie hits like Stardew Valley. I've mentioned this repeatedly. Apple Arcade subs is not an insubstantial subset of people. There are at least 70 million Arcade subs (Apple is tight lipped about how much each of their service has subs, and of course there are many Apple One subs where Arcade would also be bundled. In total services has nearly 190 million subs and brings in 20 billion a quarter). Microsoft can't even break 30 million subs for XBox Game Pass. Whether you want to acknowledge Apple as a real gaming platform or not, it simply is.

Bundles and subscription services are really worthless as indicators. They were basically giving away games pass subscriptions at some point. If the only metric that matters is number of subscribers or raw revenue then you just circled back to the original infographic. That's not addressing my position, that is dismissing it in its entirety. I wasn't disputing the numbers. I was making a value judgement, and explained clearly why.

There are tons of people that do this. They play a game on their phone while watching something on Netflix. There is nothing preventing them from flipping on their PS5 or loading up their laptop. Everything above is like an absurd image of people that they "must be" doing things a certain way just because you are.

And what do they play? Because it seems to me that this demographic you describe are the exact people who play shovelware games with predatory microtransactions. You are not going to play a complex game that requires your undivided attention while watching netflix at the same time. Yes I'd absolutely find it absurd.

Okay, this has been addressed thoroughly.

I feel like all I'm doing is repeating myself, but Apple Arcade exists. It has literally zero of the features you describe in this entire paragraph. It's a monthly sub like XBox Game Pass and gives access to hundreds of thoroughly curated, iPhone optimized games. Including MFi support meaning that virtually all can be played with a controller (it's rare to not).

You are repeating yourself and in turn forcing me to repeat myself again: Proper meaningful games that are not timewasters and not generating revenue from ads or predatory in app purchases are not the main source of revenue from mobile gaming. The revenue from paid games is not even a blip on the radar compared to ad revenue and in app purchases. Now can we finally move past this?

I've also talked multiple times about full games being ported to the system from companies like Capcom and Kojima. As well as Aspyr from many different devs (Aspyr is a company that specializing in porting). And also devs who specifically are making quality games for iOS.

And whenever I denied that they exist? It is merely the fact that they make up an insignificant percentage of the market.

You want to paint the whole market with one big brush.

I mean when only 1 billion of revenue comes from the play store / marketplace from actual purchases as opposed to 80 - 90 billlion from ad revenue and in app purchases. Then yeah, I think painting the platform with that brush is very valid.

I've spent time talking about real games and the potential that's there. And for some reason you're fixed on this idea that just because this is the way it is now, doesn't mean that it can't change in the future (that's even ignoring all the real games as mentioned above). To the point that you are the one that stated every console game being ported to mobile wouldn't change anything. Really? Every console game being on mobile with zero micro transactions and a single one time fee to play real games would change nothing? Especially considering everything I’m specifically talking about contains no gacha or micro transactions?

Now you are moving the goalposts. Can it become a comparable platform in the future? Nothing is impossible, however I don't see how actual meaningful entertainment will push out the shovelware from mobile. Yes, if every console game was ported to mobile the shovelware would still be there and responsible for most of the revenue. How will you get people to buy $70 games on mobile, when they'd rather engage with freemium crap?

You're defining the structure in all aspects of that and you can't see even the remote possibility of a different one. Well, Apple does - as mentioned through Apple Arcade and building all of the background tools to make iOS a viable true gaming platform without ads, gatcha, or micro-transactions. I do. And I'm 100% certain that companies like Capcom that are investing into macOS/iOS will also be paying attention. Because mobile is a device that everyone has (as has been discussed endlessly) and it's a massive market they can make more money from their "real games" from. And it doesn't even require that much 'extra' work to port to either.

I was talking about now, not far future possibilities. If real games become a significant market driver for mobile I'll change my position.

This sentence doesn't even merit a response. You are hypocritical, but rather than actually address that and maybe change some of your thinking, because it's your beloved platform of choice you can hand-wave it away.

Then don't respond. Calling me hypocritical without explaining how am I being hypocritical is just an ad hominem.

Never mind that some of the most popular PC games ever contain gacha and micro-transactions as you note. What is there even for me to say here?

If by most popular you mean fortnite, pubg, or any other similar, then those are also built as mobile games, so I don't consider them meaningful games. If all you care about is popularity then sure mobile is the bestest platform ever. Happy? Even though this is completely irrelevant to my original post.

So your supposition that PC gamers are not "hooked on predatory monetization" and are "conscious consumers" is absolutely false. Both in size and money spent. I don't have the time, interest or inclination to figure out even remote player stats for those other games, but considering the revenue getting poured in, it is not some small anomaly in the player base.

The funny bit is that I already addressed this too, where I mentioned that these games have low HW requirement for a very specific reason. Because they are mobile style shovelware ported to PC.

Micro-transaction games leads by far in PC gaming in player base and revenue.

LOL, you say this as if it is some win that microtransaction shovelware is popular, no wonder you are so in love with mobile as a platform.

You are absolutely wrong here via the data.

Sigh. Again with this? Let me repeat again: If all we care about is revenue then mobile is the greatest gaming platform ever. I never tried to deny the numbers.

And again, what prevents people from not simply playing the games worth playing on mobile? Can you not see that it's also perhaps possible for people who want real games on mobile to now gain access to them? That just "perhaps" there is an untapped market that exists on mobile whether you want to address them or not that are not being served by shovelware and if there were games worth playing they would play them?

Why don't you ask them? Why are they only playing candy crush?

It's also objective fact that people buy laptops over buying desktop PC's. Including for gaming. Or are you now going to try and argue that "laptops don't count" just because it's a PC?

Try? Damn right a gaming laptop is a PC, what else? A mobile phone?
And people don't buy laptops because it is a better experience over a desktop pc, they do it because they move a lot or don't have the space for a desktop PC. It is a compromise. If you truly think that somehow a less powerful computer with noisy cooling and a small screen, that constantly overheats is better, then IDK what to say to you. Not to mention that many who own a desktop PC also own laptops. That includes me. Oh, hey and I also owned consoles, and phones, not because they are my choice platforms but out of compromise. If I was moving between say college and home all the time and all I could afford is one computer then I'd also have a laptop, not because it is better for gaming, but because I'm forced to compromise.

To make my point clear, people are choosing the mobile PC option over the desktop option at a rate of ~ 3:1. That isn't counting the detachable keyboard tablets that this article notes. Then it's actually closer to 4:1. Despite whatever notions you have about "optimal".

A big chunk of laptops go to workplaces and are never gamed on. Regardless you are still threating it as a popularity contest, IDK why, because my very first post made it clear that's not the metric I used when judging mobile as a crap platform. And again, need I remind you that laptops are not in the mobile category? The mobile category clearly only includes phones and tablets, not handheld consoles, not gaming laptops, not workstation laptops.

Are we also to conclude that people who PC game don't know how to buy the correct device, or again do I need to address that "convenience" here actually matters? If people could teleport and wherever they are return home to do things in the most optimal way, you'd have a point. Turns out that regardless of gaming platform, the more mobile option is the ones that are getting chosen. But I also already addressed this above.

What are you still doing trying to move the goalposts to include first handhelds and now even gaming laptops in the mobile category when I categorically stated that my post was about mobile phones?

It's artificial segmentation. You by your own arguments say that "no one would ever choose mobile over big displays, comfortable couches, and full sized peripherals". But now you want to just hand wave an entire segment of gaming devices because they don't fit your narrative?

What narrative? Show me one person who would choose even a laptop over a gaming PC if they weren't restricted in choice by other factors? You are the one with a narrative here, trying to paint compromises as choices made in a vacuum.

Either people want to game wherever they are or they don't. And it's stupid to play this semantics game that a handheld PC or the Switch "isn't gaming on the go" and a "mobile phone is". Really what even is your argument there? And again, this is also to say nothing of laptops.

Read my first post again, I'm tired of repeating myself. Hint: My issue with mobile market isn't that you can game on the go, I thought this at least was obvious to you by now.

I would say the same. Most of your arguments are about trying to pigeonhole people or just straight up insult them.

They pigeonhole themselves. Maybe try converting them to play better games instead of blaming me for calling out the awful nature of the mobile games market.

According to you everyone who games on a laptop should want to get their head checked. And before you say: "I didn't say that", you essentially did because it doesn't fit into your gaming at home with the largest input devices or whatever narrative. Anything that doesn't fit into this "best/optimal" category which only you get to define is somehow "doing it wrong".

Anyone who has the room and could afford a desktop PC, but instead uses a laptop at home is having a sub-optimal experience, yes. Whether you like it or not.

I've explained more than once, in so many ways, that convenience matters.

Peak convinence is owning the ideal platform for all occasions, not compromising.

That people want to play games regardless of platform. That there isn't artificial segmentation that your purport there is.

It's natural segmentation, not artificial, artificial is something man made and deliberate. Trashware naturally gravitates towards phones because "don't you guys have phones"?

And that just because bad games exist, it doesn't prevent the good ones from also existing.

How many times you are going to repeat this when nobody claimed otherwise? When 99% of the market is made up of trash though, I think I'm not out of line by associating the platform with trash.

So if you don't want to actually have a discussion, because it doesn't seem like you do, feel free to move on.

I'm desperately trying to pull your head above board but you keep ducking under it.

 

[DukenukemX]

Lol, typical [H] turning this into a PCMR discussion, with all the usual extremely biased suspects as well.

The person who started this was UnknownSouljer as he was the first replay with PCMR in it. You can't expect to say something negative towards PC gaming and not get backlash for it.

Funny to think that we have to pick sides as well. As if many of us don't game on multiple platforms. At least I play on literally every platform including mobile occasionally. I love gaming on PC for FPS games for the most part, and consoles for most other genres and for local multiplayer with the family.

No dog, I don't own multiple platforms. I do rarely play games on mobile phones and I have portable game consoles for when I want to play good games on the go. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need to own both consoles and PC, because you can play all the games on PC, but you can't play all the games on console. The Steam Deck which I still don't own, is a portable gaming monster that can literally play all of Microsoft's, Sony's, Nintendo's, and PC games on the go. You can't come close to that level of convenience with anything else, and it's not expensive. It's not PCMR priced at $1k or more, but you can pick up a base model for $350. No reason to own a PS5, Xbox Series, and Switch when the PC does it all and then some. God of War? Better on PC. Halo Infinite? Better on PC. Tears of the Kingdom? Better on PC. This is not a debatable subject. A PS5 with AMD hardware is not playing games better than a PC with AMD hardware. There's a reason why Microsoft and Sony are buying game studios left and right, because without exclusives there wouldn't be a reason to buy a console.


View: https://youtu.be/0pBQ4dosuT0?si=XtMsqR8V7TjYMx_j

 

[UnknownSouljer]

EDIT: You know what? I’m capable of taking notes from Darunion. The back and forth is a waste of time. I’ll later post it in an academic format and you can agree disagree point by point and be able to say straight your positions that are at best flip flopping.

EDIT 2:
M76 - okay, let's try an academic style rigorous breakdown instead.
Please read everything before responding, because the purpose of breaking it down is to separate the different ideas into separate issues so that they can each be directly addressed. I will summarize your statements. If they are mis-represent you, feel free to correct them. If you want to skip all this and just get to what I think is the real heart of the matter in this discussion, just read the "Final Thoughts" at the bottom.

The way I see it, your issue(s) with mobile comes down to 4 things:
1.) Monetization
2.) Mechanics
3.) People/The Players
4.) Ideology

1. Monetization - You hold that "all mobile games" are filled with gacha, p2w, ads, currency, etc, and therefore mobile is a terrible platform.​

I hold this position to be false. Most notably that it doesn’t leave any room or space for change. To the ridiculous degree that you stated (paraphrasing): “that even if every console game came to mobile it wouldn’t change anything”. This is one of those things that I could address here or down below under “ideology” but the short version is: I won’t ever hold a position that something is and will always be “xyz”. Because to me this would also imply a massive change in monetization.

Though we agree all predatory practices practices are bad, it is at best an incomplete picture of mobile gaming and PC gaming for that matter.

1. If it’s a problem on mobile, it’s a problem on PC desktop. As I’ve demonstrated it’s just as bad on the PC platform as it is on mobile.
   1. All competitive PC games contain these mechanics. Whether talking about Fortnite, League of Legends, Apex Legends, Counter-Strike, StarCraft 2, Valorant, Hearthstone, CoD, et al. In fact it’s is virtually inarguable that these mechanics drive all of the PC markets money at the highest level. Competitive tournaments only exist on PC because predatory monetization exists on PC.
      1. So it either is a problem on both PC and mobile. Or it’s not a problem on either.
   2. All the top PC games in terms of player counts contain these mechanics. Which covers a large percentage of the noncompetitive games. From WoW to Roblox.
   3. If it’s about “percentage” of income based on these mechanics, then again, that paints a poor picture for PC. Activision-Blizzard, Ubisoft, Tencent, Riot, Epic - basically all of AAA gaming has these mechanics on PC. Companies like Larian and CDPR are the outliers, not the majority.
      1. Which begs the question, if PC gaming is “okay” because outliers like Larian and CDPR exist, why is it not an equal situation when outliers on mobile exist? (though I acknowledge it’s not a small percentage of the mobile market that also doesn’t play gacha/p2w etc. the differential isn't as big as you claim. Steam has 100s of thousands of games, most of which are gatcha, predatory, asset flips, hentai games, etc. Most PC games are also predatory/cynical nonsense. And it's dishonest to say it isn't.)
2. Apple Arcade Exists (est: 2019)
   1. Apple Arcade is an Apple curated platform. Meaning only games from devs that Apple specifically selects can be a part of Apple Arcade (and this is done on a per game basis, not a dev basis).
   2. Apple Arcade games do not contain any predatory monetization what-so-ever. No gotcha, no ads, no p2w, nothing. By nothing I mean nothing.
   3. All games are full games.
3. Other full titles exist and have existed from before Apple Arcade.
   1. Square-Enix continues to make new games and port old ones. If there is zero money in it, why would they bother? They have been consistently porting games for more than 12 years. Mobile is in fact one of the best platforms period to play classic JRPGs. And I say that with zero reservations.
   2. Apple is partnering with multiple devs to bring other real games to their platforms.
      1. As is noted Capcom is a major partner. It’s possible to now play RE:4 remake as an example for a one time cost AND have it available on all Apple platforms.
      2. That means I can play RE:4 on the subway on mobile and then when I come home continue to play on iPad or macOS laptop or desktop and the saves through cloud transfer.
      3. Kojima is another major partner. And back in WWDC they also announced 13 titles that would be coming to Mac/iOS platforms that are all current. Like lies of P, etc.
   3. Apple has been developing a full library stack so that this “trend” can continue.
      1. Metal 3 brings feature parity to DX12
      2. Game Porting Toolkit exists
      3. UE5 and Unity both support iOS/macOS natively
      4. iOS and macOS are becoming more interoperable meaning that more universal apps (like the above mentioned RE:4) will continue to come to the platform and allow for things like cloud saves and single purchase across all platforms.
4. PC Games with problematic monetization do not prevent players from playing PC games without them. Similarly there is a wide platform of games on iOS in particular that already exists.
   1. Either this is a problem on both or it’s a problem on neither.

2.) Mechanics - You hold that the idea of playing games on a phone is an inferior experience. (this section I’m only specifically addressing “mechanics” and “input”. Size and “optimals” are discussed under ideology).​

My position - while touch gaming by itself is suboptimal with some exceptions (Civ VI, XCom, and Final Fantasy Tactics as just a few examples actually are enhanced by a full touch interface vs a mouse), that was the entire point of Apple’s MFI program and universal controllers.

1. 1. Apple basically supports any controller you want at this point. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo Pro Controller, any controller from 8BitDo or Logitech, etc. It is in fact harder to find a controller that Apple does not support. iPadOS even supports KB/m.
   1. There is also a wide range of controllers designed for phones that wrap around the phone. The biggest ones include the Backbone One and the Razer Kishi. Meaning that yes, you really can have a console-like experience wherever you go in a fully pocketable device.
   2. If the mechanics on mobile are “not acceptable” then the mechanics on console are also not acceptable.
      1. The Valve Steamdeck is also not acceptable
      2. The Nintendo Switch is also not acceptable
   3. iOS is now kb/m compatible and you could also play games like RE:4 on iPad with KB/m. In order to argue mechanics are a failure, then you have to explain why it’s not a failure on PC or a failure on console.

3.) People/Players - you hold that everyone on mobile is sucked into gacha mechanics and can’t/won’t play anything else.​

My position: This to me is one of your weakest points for several reasons: namely that this exists on PC and PC players likely play gatcha games AND regular games. And also likely play mobile games AND PC games.

1. The same predatory mechanics that exist on mobile exist on PC.
   1. The evidence shows that PC players by and large are favoring predatory mechanics games over ones that are not. And I demonstrated that by showing the player count of a game like CP2077, which is an absolute block-buster and a game like League of Legends, Fortnite, or Apex each has a differential of at least 5x the player base. Yes I’m referring to the PC desktop versions of these games.
2. Apple Arcade Exists. It’s a platform with 75 million subs (at least)
   1. Clearly demonstrating that players don’t just play predatory game mechanics games.
   2. This is a player base twice as large as Microsoft’s Game Pass. It is not an insubstantial subset of mobile gamers.
   3. The PS5 has sold only 46M units. The Xbox X/S (combined) is a total of 20M units. Meaning more people are subscribed to Apple Arcade playing real mobile games than there are playing both next gen consoles combined.
3. It is incredibly likely that all of these groups overlap.
   1. It’s likely that PC gamers as an example play both PC p2w games AND PC games without. (eg: Valorant and CP2077)
   2. Similarly it’s likely that mobile players play mobile p2w games and mobile games without. (eg: Diablo Immortal and any game from Apple Arcade)
   3. It’s also very likely that there is a significant overlap between platforms.
      1. In other words there is not “some small percentage” of players that play both PC games and mobile games. Or Mobile + Console, or some combination of all 3.
      2. This is exacerbated by the obvious overlap of games like Fortnite that you yourself brought up. It’s a game that clearly demonstrates that there are people who play mobile and PC as being the exact same players. And if they’re playing Fortnite on PC, they referring to (1) above, are likely also playing not freemium games. Further demonstrating that PC gamers and mobile gamers are often the same gamers.

All of these points clearly demonstrate that you can’t “point the finger” at mobile players being “the dumb ones” that can’t get out of predatory practices. You made a whole statement that PC players were “well educated” and wouldn’t buy into those predatory practices, but that is 100% false. PC players can, they have, and they do dump tons of money into predatory monetization. There is no way you can say they aren't and also be intellectually honest. Activision-Blizzard, Epic, Ubisoft, Tencent, Riot, etc all are producing the top games in terms of player-base on PC, and are also "coincidentally" producing all the most profitable PC predatory mechanics games.

4.) Ideology - You hold that “the best” (and basically only way) to play games is at home, comfortably, on a large screen, with full sized input devices.​

My position: you have an idealized idea about what gaming should be, and very little of gaming or just the real world in general ever falls into an idealized situation. So while you’re busy arguing that it’s the best format, very few people have time or desire to do things in that way. This is the problem with all idealized things in general. I am far less concerned about what is “ideal” and far more concerned about what people are actually doing.
If you think I am or I have ever commented on what is "ideal" or "the best experience ever" let me say for you clearly: I am not and have not. And I think it should be painfully obvious that a majority of people also do not. But because it isn't we end up talking in circles. You about ideals, and me explaining to you that ideals are just that "ideals". It's not reality or even reality adjacent.

1. People compromise constantly about everything, gaming is no different. Therefore slighting mobile because you have a bias is simply not an accurate view of what people are actually doing or how the world works.
   1. This is why discussing laptop sales vs desktop are relevant, because even PC users predominantly are already using something that is “compromised”.
   2. The Steam Deck exists as does an entire market of handheld PCs, which is only growing. This again shows that there is a big market of people that specifically “compromise“ on their gaming devices.
   3. The Nintendo Switch is massively sold console (one of the top of all time at 132.5M units). People globally take this with them to game on.
   4. Consoles exist. Whether you think they’re a “necessary” scrub level or not, it also is another space that doesn’t fit the narrative of optimals or your set of ideals.
   5. Mobile as a 'compromise' is not substantively different than any of the above, again considering the "mechanics" section. The only argument in difference here vs the above is related specifically to "software", which was also covered in both the Monetization section.
2. Not even sure how to categorize this, but you seem to basically take umbrage that it’s even remotely possible that people could enjoy playing games on their mobile devices while out in the world or “even at home”.
   1. I have no desire to rehash any of the sections above, but basically: if you don’t like that form of gaming you don’t have to participate.
      1. Just because you don’t like mobile, doesn’t make it bad (referring to full length premium/non-gacha games).
      2. It also doesn't mean that other people can't and/or don't enjoy it. In fact, quite the opposite.
   2. Just because it doesn’t fit your narrative of being the best experience doesn’t make it not the one that other people prefer. Or actively choose because it fits into their lifestyle. Similar to the above about compromising about laptops, handheld PC’s, and the Switch.
      1. People don’t go to the theater for all movies.
      2. They do not sit in the front row for every game in the stadium.
      3. They do not eat all meals at 3 star Michelin Restaurants, and when they aren’t doing that they don’t all have personal chefs.
      4. They don’t all drive Bugatti's and Range Rovers.
      5. They don’t live in ideal areas (like Hawaii, Milan, Provance, The Maldives, etc)
      6. ETC ETC. The list goes on and on and on. Humans compromise literally on every aspect of their life. But entering into a conversation about “compromise” in terms of gaming with you is met with incredulity that those people are “picking the worst platform” or whatever it is. Enough to be insulting and call them “not gamers” and calling all of the games “not games” which in the above points I have enumerated on and shown to be false.
         1. You are uncompromising on gaming because I guess it's super important and precious to you. But that isn't other people's perspective. Most gamers are implicitly not 'hardcore gamers'. They're casuals. Whether you're talking about PC gamers, console gamers, or yes, mobile gamers, most people are casual gamers regardless of platform.
            1. Most people do not finish the games they buy (there are tons of statistics on this).
            2. Most people don't spend 100s of hours on games (the [H] is a very hardcore gaming community so the stats here are skewed. But try looking up a game in general on Steam or GoG through their achievement system).
            3. Only a tiny group of people plays games professionally in eSports or professionally as a Twitch streamer. And outside of those people very few people play games as hardcore and as a hobby as people on these forums do.

Laptops sell more than desktops. Consoles exist. As do all of these handheld PCs. Singling out mobile for being a "not ideal gaming platform" is therefore a waste of time at best or hypocritical at worst (unless you want to equally drone on about how all those other platforms are just as not ideal, which you don't). A vast majority of people pick a compromise that prefer, up to not even bothering on PC gaming period (eg: console). The only thing I think you've said here emphatically is that "you don't like it", but have added very little to how that is relevant to other players on any platform. Gamers play on mobile. Droning on whether it's "the best or not" based on your arbitrary values is irrelevant.

Final thoughts:​

To me, you're incredibly unreasonable with your position about mobile. I get hating a lot of mobile mechanics that have come, we agree about that particular point. But when discussing the idea of every console game being available on mobile, you outright said that it would change nothing on the platform. Never mind that that would mean tons of games that have none of the mechanics you dislike, are full/complete/complex games, have competent graphics, and use console controls would be available. There is no “convincing you” that that would make the platform “good enough” to fit into your idea of what a game platform should be.

Frankly, I think most of your opposition here is that you just have some ideological problem, highlighted above that no sweeping changes of the platform is “enough change” for you. Not only is it not possible to avoid predatory mechanics today (which it is), or that there are excellent games on the platform, or that people game in different ways than you: There is no future according to you. And to you, there is no future that we could even make up or pretend that would make the platform worth using. Which is ultimately some underlying bias that you have about mobile.

In fact, I would go so far as to say, don’t even bother to respond to the breakdown above. I would simply say: “what would it take for you to get the chip off your shoulder about mobile?” And your response there I think really is the difference between whether there is a discussion going forward or not.

Because if it’s “nothing”, which I suspect it is, then I know I’m not even talking to someone about this subject that is rational. It’s just some ideology you have that mobile=bad.
The other half of this is why I addressed all I did above. Good games exist that contain no predatory mechanics, they can be controlled using modern input devices (including full sized ones even), they can be streamed to a TV if you so desire through screen sharing, they look good, play well, etc. In the case of a device like the M2 and soon to be M3 iPad Pro, they have more power than consoles. And devices like the iPhone 15 Pro Max have large screen size at 6.7" similar to Steam Deck or Switch, are OLED, Dolby Digital HDR certified, run at 120Hz. It's RT capable and has roughly the power of a PS4 Pro... in the palm of your hand. It's a device that easily rivals Steam Deck in hardware. Slap a Backbone One on it and it rivals it in control surface as well.

Maybe it's simple: you judge mobile by the games that are at the bottom and you judge PC based on the games that are at the top.
Maybe if you instead would judge mobile by the games at the top just like you are PC games that are at the top, you'd have a different opinion.
But if you want to judge mobile by the bottom, then frankly as I've demonstrated, the bottom of PC gaming is just as bad if not worse. However at least a bottom to bottom comparison would be a fair comparison. So far I've only really seen you selectively talk about the worst of mobile and the best of PC simply to suit your points and your narrative. No balance.

Mobile is an incredibly strong space, there is little in my mind that you can say here that "has to change" that hasn't already been done. Again highlighting to me why you have some ideological problem with the platform. Not one based in the reality of what it's like to play games on a phone in 2024. Now to be clear, does mobile need more top end software? Yes it does. Some has come, and more is already coming. That's why the future on mobile is pretty bright. But even today there is plenty to keep interested in.

 

[Darunion]

There needs to be a limit on how many pages of scrolling a post can be...

 

[DukenukemX]

There needs to be a limit on how many pages of scrolling a post can be...

I'm glad UnknownSouljer blocked me because that wall of text would be towards me. M76 now has to choose to reply to that wall of raging insanity. All this because UnknownSouljer can't deal with the PC market growing in revenue faster than console. The mobile market grew exponentially faster, but it's just not the same market. What's more insane is that during the pandemic when GPU's were priced to match a used car, the market seems to have grown for PC. A PS5 was also priced at used car prices, but it didn't grow. Mobile seems to have nearly doubled since the start of the pandemic. The mobile games that are making money are Honor of Kings, PUBG, and Genshin Impact. Honor of Kings seems to be a LOL clone, and PUBG is... PUBG. Genshin Impact is basically an MMO for pedos. Candy Crush is the choice game for middle aged women. Roblox is the game where kids parents don't realize their credit card is still being used.

 

[Darunion]

I'm glad UnknownSouljer blocked me because that wall of text would be towards me. M76 now has to choose to reply to that wall of raging insanity. All this because UnknownSouljer can't deal with the PC market growing in revenue faster than console. The mobile market grew exponentially faster, but it's just not the same market. What's more insane is that during the pandemic when GPU's were priced to match a used car, the market seems to have grown for PC. A PS5 was also priced at used car prices, but it didn't grow. Mobile seems to have nearly doubled since the start of the pandemic. The mobile games that are making money are Honor of Kings, PUBG, and Genshin Impact. Honor of Kings seems to be a LOL clone, and PUBG is... PUBG. Genshin Impact is basically an MMO for pedos. Candy Crush is the choice game for middle aged women. Roblox is the game where kids parents don't realize their credit card is still being used.

ha thank you for the analysis of the game demographics!

If we hadnt all just been okay with the skyrim oblivion horse armor, then all this pay a little and get a little added to your game to nickel and dime everyone, might have stayed away longer. I play WoW so ive been feeding blizz/activision a yearly check for a while now so im no better.

We have shown how willing we are to part with a buck or two here and there so it does make sense why mobile apps/games moved the way they did finding more ways to convince you to spend money but not force it. Id like to hope it will get better but probably not. $5 to get a cool looking gun, $10 to let other people be able to see it too, $5 to give it a cool reloading sound, $15 to let other people hear the sound.

 

[Shoganai]

I'm glad UnknownSouljer blocked me because that wall of text would be towards me. M76 now has to choose to reply to that wall of raging insanity. All this because UnknownSouljer can't deal with the PC market growing in revenue faster than console. The mobile market grew exponentially faster, but it's just not the same market. What's more insane is that during the pandemic when GPU's were priced to match a used car, the market seems to have grown for PC. A PS5 was also priced at used car prices, but it didn't grow. Mobile seems to have nearly doubled since the start of the pandemic. The mobile games that are making money are Honor of Kings, PUBG, and Genshin Impact. Honor of Kings seems to be a LOL clone, and PUBG is... PUBG. Genshin Impact is basically an MMO for pedos. Candy Crush is the choice game for middle aged women. Roblox is the game where kids parents don't realize their credit card is still being used.

I can't stand the mobile market. I blame Apple's massive profits from the mobile sector for them not caring about games on the Mac. I mean I don't game on the Mac, but they're powerful enough now to do so, and they're only now pushing their lazy efforts to get more devs on board. But like you said, the mobile and desktop/console markets are vastly different and shouldn't be compared.

I'm not sure what you mean about the PlayStation 5 not growing. It took me 2 freaking years to snag one because of stupid scalpers and people were still buying that garbage. I'm glad to see that the PC gaming market hasn't died at all. It would suck if they ever went away. I'm honestly getting kind of sick of how expensive console games are. PC gaming is so much more affordable, especially with Steam sales.

 

[sharknice]

ha thank you for the analysis of the game demographics!

If we hadnt all just been okay with the skyrim horse armor, then all this pay a little and get a little added to your game to nickel and dime everyone, might have stayed away longer. I play WoW so ive been feeding blizz/activision a yearly check for a while now so im no better.

We have shown how willing we are to part with a buck or two here and there so it does make sense why mobile apps/games moved the way they did finding more ways to convince you to spend money but not force it. Id like to hope it will get better but probably not. $5 to get a cool looking gun, $10 to let other people be able to see it too, $5 to give it a cool reloading sound, $15 to let other people hear the sound.

I like it.
I personally benefit from f2p because I get to play for free and have the willpower to never spend any money at all.

Devs actually update their games because they need to keep people playing and spending money so I get to freeload even more.

I spend like less than $100 a year on games now, it would be $100+ a month back in the old model.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I can't stand the mobile market. I blame Apple's massive profits from the mobile sector for them not caring about games on the Mac. I mean I don't game on the Mac, but they're powerful enough now to do so, and they're only now pushing their lazy efforts to get more devs on board. But like you said, the mobile and desktop/console markets are vastly different and shouldn't be compared.

One of my biggest criticisms of Mac as a Mac user is software. I don't think there isn't anyone that wouldn't say the same.

However, Apple in terms of gaming has changed a lot. In the last 4 years or so they've invested a huge amount of money, time, and dev resources. They've developed entire libraries and made the process of putting games on the macOS the easiest it can possibly be at this point. In fact, the only reason why any new game doesn't come to Mac is only because the publisher/dev doesn't want to bother, which is no fault of Apples.

They made Metal 3 which brings feature parity to DX12/Vulkan.
They have roughly all the same addressable hardware which gives hardware parity (not speed parity, just specifically that the hardware can do the same things like path shading and RT).
They created the game porting tool kit.
UE5 and Unity both support macOS and iOS natively.
This is to say nothing of other software features they've implemented such as MetalFX, which like nVidia libraries doesn't really require any dev work at all to implement.

It takes far less effort to natively port a game to Mac than it does trying to optimize for console.

I'm not sure why you think Apple are the "lazy" ones here. They've put in the time and dev resources as well as made the platform robust enough to easily come to macOS and/or iOS if they "want to". They're paying Capcom and Kojima and several others. What else can Apple do? Put a gun to their heads?

 

[DukenukemX]

If we hadnt all just been okay with the skyrim horse armor, then all this pay a little and get a little added to your game to nickel and dime everyone, might have stayed away longer. I play WoW so ive been feeding blizz/activision a yearly check for a while now so im no better.

Yea I've been playing WoW for a long time. It's over now, because WOTLK is over unless I wanted to play SoD. I don't.

We have shown how willing we are to part with a buck or two here and there so it does make sense why mobile apps/games moved the way they did finding more ways to convince you to spend money but not force it. Id like to hope it will get better but probably not. $5 to get a cool looking gun, $10 to let other people be able to see it too, $5 to give it a cool reloading sound, $15 to let other people hear the sound.

It's all about accessibility since the mobile gaming market was able to reach new untapped people who would never consider playing games. Most of the people playing Candy Crush do not consider it a video game, even though by definition it is a video game. As the WoW guy said, everyone does indeed have phones. This is important for people outside of the US and Europe where spending whatever is the equivalent of $500 for a console and $60 for a game is not something they could afford, but everyone has at least a $100 phone. It's not a coincidence that most mobile games are free to play, because again nobody could afford to pay $60 for a game. But like any addiction, people will find a dollar or equivalent to buy a cool looking gun. This is why China is putting restrictions in games because their market is extremely susceptible to this.

For example.

1. Games will now be banned from giving players rewards if they log in every day,
2. Online games must set a spending limits.
3. Probability luck draws must not be offered.
4. Players who stream games must not be offered large tips.

You see less AAA games doing this as it's something that always gets criticized and AAA games is something that the west mostly buys. The west isn't big with in game purchases, so it makes sense that you see less new AAA games with them. Diablo 4 has a lot of micro-transactions and the game is barely surviving, but Baldur's Gate 3 has none and everyone can't stop buying. Something like 28million for BG3 vs 10million for Diablo 4. Getting harder to justify those micro-transactions if it hurts game sales. You'd think Diablo Immortal made more money than Diablo 4, but nope. Diablo Immortal made $525 Million vs Diablo 4 $666 million in just 5 days. That's not to say that the mobile market doesn't make money, because it clearly does. What this means is that you can't just go from being a AAA game developer and jump on mobile and expect to make the same money as Honor of Kings. Also, people aren't going to switch to another similar game when they're already invested in the game they're currently playing. It's just like World of Warcraft where you can't excpect WoW players to leave WoW for another MMO, at least not for long because ultimatley they come back to WoW because that's where their stuff is.

As much as UnknownSouljer is in love with the idea of Apple iPhones and AAA games, this is mostly a western thing. Most iPhones sales are in the west, and most AAA games are also in the west. So if there's any hope for mobile AAA gaming, it would have to run on $100 phones you find in China. As far as the west in concerned, we have better options to play AAA games on the go and it's the Switch or Steam Deck. As convenient as having my games on my phone, I would need a joystick attactment too because I'm not dealing with touchscreen controls. I'm also draining the battery fast on an essential device that I need to do other things during my day, even though with fast charging it only takes 20 minutes but I'm not always by a charger.

 

[Shoganai]

One of my biggest criticisms of Mac as a Mac user is software. I don't think there isn't anyone that wouldn't say the same.

However, Apple in terms of gaming has changed a lot. In the last 4 years or so they've invested a huge amount of money, time, and dev resources. They've developed entire libraries and made the process of putting games on the macOS the easiest it can possibly be at this point. In fact, the only reason why any new game doesn't come to Mac is only because the publisher/dev doesn't want to bother, which is no fault of Apples.

They made Metal 3 which brings feature parity to DX12/Vulkan.
They have roughly all the same addressable hardware which gives hardware parity (not speed parity, just specifically that the hardware can do the same things like path shading and RT).
They created the game porting tool kit.
UE5 and Unity both support macOS and iOS natively.
This is to say nothing of other software features they've implemented such as MetalFX, which like nVidia libraries doesn't really require any dev work at all to implement.

It takes far less effort to natively port a game to Mac than it does trying to optimize for console.

I'm not sure why you think Apple are the "lazy" ones here. They've put in the time and dev resources as well as made the platform robust enough to easily come to macOS and/or iOS if they "want to". They're paying Capcom and Kojima and several others. What else can Apple do? Put a gun to their heads?

Yes, they're putting in an effort now, but it's still a half-baked effort, regardless of the tools they're coming up with. If they were serious, they'd buy up a reputable studio or something like all the other companies have done.

 

[DukenukemX]

I'm not sure what you mean about the PlayStation 5 not growing. It took me 2 freaking years to snag one because of stupid scalpers and people were still buying that garbage. I'm glad to see that the PC gaming market hasn't died at all. It would suck if they ever went away. I'm honestly getting kind of sick of how expensive console games are. PC gaming is so much more affordable, especially with Steam sales.

I should have worded it as console market not growing and not PS5 as that's what I meant.

 

[DukenukemX]

It takes far less effort to natively port a game to Mac than it does trying to optimize for console.

If you optimize for console then you optimize for PC, so it works out. Porting a game to Mac though isn't easy as this developer points out. You can't run MacOS in a VM so you need real Apple hardware to port the game, and not even developers want to deal with spending money on hardware. Also, it seems that Xcode is terrible.


View: https://youtu.be/qRQX9fgrI4s?si=fTNXiG4D7EqWfXsz

 

[Shoganai]

As much as UnknownSouljer is in love with the idea of Apple iPhones and AAA games, this is mostly a western thing. Most iPhones sales are in the west, and most AAA games are also in the west. So if there's any hope for mobile AAA gaming, it would have to run on $100 phones you find in China. As far as the west in concerned, we have better options to play AAA games on the go and it's the Switch or Steam Deck. As convenient as having my games on my phone, I would need a joystick attactment too because I'm not dealing with touchscreen controls. I'm also draining the battery fast on an essential device that I need to do other things during my day, even though with fast charging it only takes 20 minutes but I'm not always by a charger.

The most iPhones are sold in China, actually. And there are some hugely popular games coming out of China lately, albeit garbage gacha games like Genshin Impact, which I won't play. However, Tencent also comes out of China ... and Tencent owns 40% of EPIC Games. China bans outside online gaming with other countries though because China is stupid, so there's that.

 

[Shoganai]

I should have worded it as console market not growing and not PS5 as that's what I meant.

Understood.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Yes, they're putting in an effort now, but it's still a half-baked effort, regardless of the tools they're coming up with. If they were serious, they'd buy up a reputable studio or something like all the other companies have done.

I can see you point, but Apple would never do that. To them it's not worth it to get involved at that level.

I think in the future it's possible that Apple becomes a full blown publisher. They get "pitched" ideas for games and they become a publisher that funds exclusive games getting made for their platform(s) - similar to their AppleTV+ model. That's the closest they will likely ever get, but never actual ownership.

 

[DukenukemX]

I can see you point, but Apple would never do that. To them it's not worth it to get involved at that level.

I think in the future it's possible that Apple becomes a full blown publisher. They get "pitched" ideas for games and they become a publisher that funds exclusive games getting made for their platform(s) - similar to their AppleTV+ model. That's the closest they will likely ever get, but never actual ownership.

I wouldn't say never, because gaming is a big part of Apple's iOS revenue. It also makes sense that Apple is now pushing for cross compatibility with games on MacOS and iOS, because this means developers maybe able to make one game that works on both platforms. When you buy Resident Evil Village on MacOS, you automatically own a copy for iOS. So far Apple's been paying developers to port games and if they continue it may snow ball into a self propelling system. If it doesn't they can always buy up studios like Microsoft has been doing. Of course Apple could continue to do nothing and just continue to collect all the free money that their app store generates.

 

[Lakados]

I can see you point, but Apple would never do that. To them it's not worth it to get involved at that level.

I think in the future it's possible that Apple becomes a full blown publisher. They get "pitched" ideas for games and they become a publisher that funds exclusive games getting made for their platform(s) - similar to their AppleTV+ model. That's the closest they will likely ever get, but never actual ownership.

Pretty much this right here, some Apple execs probably see where getting a few games launched for iOS is a good thing, they probably already have calculations for how much revenue it would generate with their % cut vs how much it costs them to incentivize getting the developer to put it there.
For all I know they might value it as a loss leader right now as they work to build the platforms reputation as something you can game on.
Apple pushes their Arcade platform pretty hard and it generates a lot of money. Who knows maybe one day we see bigger titles on there from Sony who start doing it just to spite Microsoft, they’ve done weirder.

 

[Armenius]

ha thank you for the analysis of the game demographics!

If we hadnt all just been okay with the skyrim horse armor, then all this pay a little and get a little added to your game to nickel and dime everyone, might have stayed away longer. I play WoW so ive been feeding blizz/activision a yearly check for a while now so im no better.

We have shown how willing we are to part with a buck or two here and there so it does make sense why mobile apps/games moved the way they did finding more ways to convince you to spend money but not force it. Id like to hope it will get better but probably not. $5 to get a cool looking gun, $10 to let other people be able to see it too, $5 to give it a cool reloading sound, $15 to let other people hear the sound.

Oblivion horse armor, not Skyrim.

 

[Lakados]

I wouldn't say never, because gaming is a big part of Apple's iOS revenue. It also makes sense that Apple is now pushing for cross compatibility with games on MacOS and iOS, because this means developers maybe able to make one game that works on both platforms. When you buy Resident Evil Village on MacOS, you automatically own a copy for iOS. So far Apple's been paying developers to port games and if they continue it may snow ball into a self propelling system. If it doesn't they can always buy up studios like Microsoft has been doing. Of course Apple could continue to do nothing and just continue to collect all the free money that their app store generates.

Apple would bring them in IF they manage to get Arcade and game usage to a place where basically building their own exclusives and going the Nintendo, Sony route makes sense. They are a long ass way from that, but who knows 5-10 years from now I could see it happen.

 

[LukeTbk]

Apple would bring them in IF they manage to get Arcade and game usage to a place where basically building their own exclusives and going the Nintendo, Sony route makes sense. They are a long ass way from that, but who knows 5-10 years from now I could see it happen.

Like for AppleTV and geting into content production, there is a limit to how much money can sit in coffer for how long that can push them to try less comfortable uncertain stuff from time to time, more serious semi or fully exclusive game would be a very natural avenue to try at some point for sure, specially if they run on their biggest phone-tablet (with a streaming to a tv the image-sound available) has seem to become more and more the case, how much more value people will find in more powerful phone to do traditional phone task, like they did with pc specially for non gamer, than tablet, people will not feel the need to update phone often for stuff that do not run the latest and greatest more demanding application (or if-when cloud gaming get good enough for appleTV user like Netflix games, all of a certain already licensed iOS library but on the big screen as a start so their 3-4 big launch title and 12 small are not alone).

 

[Lakados]

Like for AppleTV and geting into content production, there is a limit to how much money can sit in coffer for how long that can push them to try less comfortable uncertain stuff from time to time, more serious semi or fully exclusive game would be a very natural avenue to try at some point for sure.

But only if they have a platform for it.
I don’t yet believe Apple is in that place yet.
Additionally they have to be cautious to some degree, regulators watch Apple hard if they get too deep into software exclusives in their closed ecosystem it could bring them heat they are trying to avoid.