By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 26 January 2016
Edit Thread
spemanig said:
Soundwave said:

"Different" doesn't mean better though. Yes we all know dedicated game handhelds are better for traditional games. 

But by the same token I think it's fair to say, mobile games do a good enough job at entertaining, and are honestly far easier to pick and play most of the time, which is good for casual players and young children. Anyone can understand touch. 

If people want to play deep games, I think honestly these days that's what the home console is for. You have your 50 inch HDTV sitting at home with your $300-$400 console, people would rather just leave that type of gaming itch to the big boy console. 

The smartphone/tablet takes care of the portable side of things. 

We underestimate how much the tablet has changed domestic life too, like I said kids have a tablet or phone flung into their face before they can walk these days. It's not just games either, I know a lot of kids that basically watch all their cartoons on the tablet too. 

I never said different meant better. That's not the point I was trying to make.

Like I said, I like mobile games. I have no problem with mobile games, but they are not a replacement for handhelds. Not because they are worse. They are not worse. Some are better. That's not what I'm getting at. They are literally designed differently mechanically. They do not have the same skeleton. That's the point I'm trying to make. Your traditional games comparison is what I'm on about. When you say "traditional/deep games," I'm saying "handheld and console games." 

Mobile games do an amazing job at what they do. But they are not this evolution of the handheld. They are a different beast. It isn't "gaming on the go." It's its own brand of games, biologically different from handheld games.

If people want to play "deep games," thats what handhelds and consoles are for. Handhelds are for playing "deep games" on the go. Phones are for playing mobile games. It has nothing to do with the "portable side of things." It's the games and the platform. Want mobile games? Play on your iphone. Want traditional games on the go? People buy handhelds for that. Still. There is a market, it is still large, and I think it will get much larger with the NXDS when the platform is finally as modern as its tech peers, something neither the 3DS nor the Vita were. Not talking about power. I'm talking about firmware and UI.

 

I think where you're wrong is saying they're not a replacement for handhelds. They are. They get the job done for most people and they have a killer draw that Nintendo can't ever match -- free games. Thousands and thousands of them. Backed by monster marketing budgets that Nintendo can't come close to. 

Lots of kids these days don't even know Nintendo's version of "every kid should have a Game Boy/DS" ... they're not raised in that culture at all, they have a tablet placed into their hands by age 2/3, they laugh when I tell them Game Boy was the cool thing when I was a kid. This generation has no frame of reference, this is normal to them. 

We may say "yeah b bu but 3DS! Wouldn't you rather play Mario?!" but these kids don't understand that at all. To them that's not normal. Free games is normal to them. That's why curl-6 has rightly said it's like a hijacking of the business. 

This is like when people said Netflix is not a replacement for Blockbuster Video and traditional rental stores. After all, you can't rent all the New Releases with Netflix, it's just mostly older catalog movies. 

But Netflix did pretty quickly destroy the Blockbuster model. It was far more convienant, and even if people weren't getting the big gun movies, the overall selection you can get on Netflix trumped the old model. 

For the record, I kinda miss Blockbuster/physical rental stores, but what can you do.