Soundwave said:
I don't really buy that it's a "huge problem" though. First of all, there are new gamers coming into the industry constantly. That's because there are kids being born constantly, so like lol, there's never really a danger of gaming not having new customers. Sony's game division just had their highest profit since 1998, this shouldn't be possible if the market for more complex games has declined. $15 for a movie ticket and $60 for a game is still huge whopping difference. I would never pay $60 for a concert I only kinda/sorta was interested in. I would need really strong motivation to spend $60 on anything. That's not a trivial throw away amount of money for most people. $15 ... ok, yeah that's more reasonable. What's wrong with people playing on smartphones? It's not that consoles have to be just for one demographic, it's that smartphones simply are better than consoles at delivering games to the casual/non-gamer type. You're not giving them smartphone enough credit. They've kicked the console's ass at that, and that's fine. Once upon a time everyone had to have a stereo player in their living room because it was basically the only way to listen to music. Then technology changed and you had the WalkMan, which became the DiscMan, which became the iPod, which is now the smartphone. Not very many people have a dedicated music stereo system in their house anymore, and that's fine. If someone just wants to listen on their phone, that's fine. Technology advances and it gives people more personalized options. Same with a PC ... plenty of homes these days don't have a big fat tower PC anymore, but 15 years ago you basically had no choice but to own one. Well tech changed, and the same thing has happened with gaming, and quite frankly maybe that's a good thing. We are so quick to label it a bad thing, but why should someone pay $300 + $60/game if they just want to have 30-90 minutes of fun a week? Why shouldn't there be a better option for people like that? |
Look, there's nothing wrong with people playing games on phones, and people getting into games through phones is not a bad thing. The problem arises when the industry tries to cock-block those mobile gamers from getting interested into other types of games. It's the equivelant of never taking the training wheels off your bike. Mobile is a great jumping off point for people new to games, but we shouldn't just confine casual gamers to mobile games only. Like I said, Pokemon Go introduced Pokemon to a whole new generation, and it both boosted 3DS sales, and made Pokemon Sun and Moon the best selling entries in the series.
While not every game is worth $60, people will spend that much if you make it worth the asking price to people. Plus, you don't need to spend $60 on a game. There's plenty of games on all platforms that only cost around $4 or $5, or at least under $50. People are willing to pay for something if its worth the price, so this narrative that mobile gamers will never pay for games doesn't really hold any weight. New gamers are always comming into the industry, but if we don't encourage them to broaden their tastes, then we won't be able to create long term customers. This is something that even Sony understands.
Point is, there's no sense in perpetuating the narrative that only core gamers play consoles and only casuals play mobile games, when there's plenty of room for both a middle ground, and overlap. The Switch is the middle ground that the industry needs, because it simplifies the console experience by merging it with something people are already familiar with, that being tablets. If people can own both a tablet and a phone. They can own both a Switch and a phone as well.
