On The State Of Handheld Videogaming

Thanks to GCAdvanced.com for its mammoth 30+ page article interviewing developers and journalists about the state of the handheld videogame industry. Highlights include Karthik Bala of Vicarious Visions on why wireless matters for handhelds ("We've done plenty of multiplayer game modes for our GBA games, but the need for a link cable really limits the number of players who will play them. Our first N-Gage title supports Bluetooth multiplayer and we'll also be supporting the upcoming GBA wireless adapter in [an] upcoming game"), and Steven Kent's predictions for handheld market share by the end of 2005: "My guess [in descending order]: GBA, DS, PSP, N-Gage QD, Zodiac."

Comments

A few points

[Peter Cooper]

but the need for a link cable really limits the number of players who will play them.

It's not just the need for a cable, but the price of the cable when you go and look for one. It is not uncommon for these cables to be $30+.. and, for what, two proprietary plugs with some wires in between? Not encouraging!

I have to say, though, wireless handheld gaming units could be really popular, but I think cellphone based systems will ultimately prove more successful than the Gameboy. Almost everyone in the target market carries a cellphone nowadays, and the beauty of wireless gaming is that you can play whenever you feel like it. Most people won't carry their Gameboys around with them all of the time.. but they'll have their phone.

Most people who DO play Gameboy games together using the cable are usually meeting up at someone elses' house anyway.. and if you're going to do that, why not play just play multiplayer on an XBox or PS2? That's why cabled mobile gaming hasn't caught on so far.. people just don't all take their Gameboys and meet up in inconvenient locations just for the fun of it.. with wireless, they could.

Re:A few points

[Schezar]

Most cell phones are SMALL. They have small screens and long battery lives. Adding gaming to that adversly affects both of these aspects, which happen to be the primary factors in my choice of phone.

I carry my cell phone everywhere. When I feel the need to game (going to the DMV or somesuch), I bring the GBA as well.

If my cell phone had a screen large enough to play a decent game on it, it would be bulkier than I want a cell phone to be. If it had the power to play the kinds of games I like to play, the battery would last a craptacularly short time.

Cell phones will become a viable gaming platform when screens become little holo-projectors that don't require any space.

And just a note, if you paid $30 for a link cable, you must be brain-damaged. The official Nintendo ones run about $12 new and $5 used. 3'rd party ones run about $10. Did you make that number up to prove your point?

Re:Speculating on the DS..

[Yorrike]

The N-Gage does 3D, and look how many that sold.

The fact of the matter is that 3D doesn't translate easily to the small dimensions of handheld units. The screen size mixed with the limitations of battery life, portable computational power and reasonalbe price point make 3D handheld gaming a prospect best fitting for future generations.

After all, the PSP is going to cost several hundred dollars, which going by current speculation, could nab you a GBA, DS(or GC) and a game or two by the time it comes out. I know what I'd prefer.

DS, PSP, Sony???

[pudge_lightyear]

I may be the only person who sees the Sony as (possibly) failing with the PSP. I think the PS2 has had a great life, but the latter part of it (the part we're in) is nothing to write home about.

Sony, I think, more than Nintendo and Microsoft, is badly in need of something that will prove itself at about this time. Since the PS3 is not going to come out a whole year before the competition, they had better give more reason to buy it than backwards compatibility. The PSP will also not have the same advantage from the start that the PS2 had...

Sony is still dominant, but hasn't given me much of a reason to buy into that dominance in the last several years. They simply enjoy a larger user base.

Nintendo is in somewhat of a similar situation, however, they don't need to worry about where the next generation gamers are going. Nintendo delivers quality... and there are a lot of people that live by that rule before all else (me included).

DS isn't a guaranteed hit either, but I think it's more guaranteed than the PSP.

Re:DS, PSP, Sony???

[buffer-overflowed]

The DS is targetting a different market than either the PSP or the GBA.

Heck the PSP targets a different market than the GBA does. One I'm not sure exists and has the means to buy the thing(College kids fit the bill, but I was flat BROKE in college).

Take me for example. I'm an early 20s male, how do I spend my time.

Well, I'm either at home, at work, in transit to work, or out and about. I won't(and don't) bring a handheld gaming device to most of those locations. Most either have TVs(Home, friends houses) or it's impossible/not likely for me to be gaming in those locations (I'm not whipping out any of these devices at a bar or at work for instance).

Now, waiting rooms and the like, sure, but four times a year is hardly worth the cost of a handheld. Travel? Yea, great. Got a laptop for planes, and I don't ride too many trains or buses as I'm not an urbanite.

I ended up getting a GBA for two main reasons:
1. GBA-GCN linking. Not used a lot, but FF:CC for example gives you an experience you can't get anywhere else.
2. Homebrew development.

The games were really just a bonus.

So, you have Nintendo's platforms, both of which offer you experiences you simply can't get anywhere else. The DS has a lot of potential, if some of the rumors are true. Regardless it's going to give you something you can't get anywhere else. The virtual boy did, the original Gameboy did, the GBA does. Whether or not this is something either you or the market want is up in the air, but it's definately a big difference and advantage.

The PSP meanwhile is a disk-based souped up 3D gameboy. All it offers is portability. Toss in the history of the Market, and it isn't going to do well.

Re:DS, PSP, Sony???

[buffer-overflowed]

Two things the market has historically shown:
1. No handheld priced over $100 has EVER succeeded.
2. Battery life is more important than processing power.

The gameboy beat and has beat all comers because it's been the cheapest(always $100 or less) and has had the best battery life. Add into this the quality of the handheld games and the inevitable deluge of third party software due to it's ubiquity and cracking the Gameboy market share is a tough thing to do. Not to mention over 10 years of backwards compatible games, a large catalog of games which appeal to the thus far primary market for handhelds(children [Hence the importance of low cost]), and a now quite slick design.

SEGA failed with the Gamegear, and that was color versus black and white released by a company who at the time shared the console throne with Nintendo AND had strong first party titles(as Nintendo does and Sony doesn't). It was also competing at a time when there weren't several thousand Gameboy titles in the back catalog.

Atari failed too, miserably.

Nokia most recently failed, and failed miserably.

So, why do people think the PSP is going to do well? Because of Sony's dominance in the Console realm? It didn't help SEGA when SEGA was sharing dominance with Nintendo. Because it's technically superior offering? Hasn't helped any other competitors.

What we have upcoming is the maker of the number two non-PC gaming product(the PS2) trying to take on the number one non-PC gaming product(the GBA).

The handheld market really isn't all that screwy, it's actually pretty easy to understand. To succeed you need a cheap product with excellent battery life that can compete with the experience offered by other offerings. So far, most competitors have gotten the last bit to one degree or another. Nokia failed on all 3 fronts. Those 3 points are absolutely necessary to capture the existing market away from Nintendo.

Nintendo's gameboy is the platinum standard, it IS the handheld market for all intents and purposes, and it's been the market for quite some time.

Now, if you want to argue that Sony stands a chance at growing the handheld market, as they did with the Console market, and thus introducing new factors required for success in that realm, I'll buy that as a possibility. I do not however see it, because I don't see the primary market for consoles using handheld gaming devices enough to justify the purchase of one without getting additional value from it they can't get elsewhere.

In my case for instance, I'll just wait a year and throw down a bit more change and get a PS3 or a GCN2 or an XBox 2.

Then add in the following things we know about Sony:
1. No gaming product they have released has lived up to it's hype. See also: the PS2.
2. They have an awful reputation for hardware longevity, their stuff breaks, frequently. See also: the PS1/PS2.

Except for a few developers, I expect the vast majority to take a wait and see approach to the PSP. I see it occupying at best the position the GameGear was in. A distant but respectable second and a must-own for the hardcore, but not the mainstream all pervasive product the PS2 or GBA are.

As to the DS. The DS is a niche product, and built to be a niche product. It's an attempt to give gamers stuff they aren't going to get on a console, or PC, or on the GBA/PSP. New concepts, new types of games, and the like. It's primary purpose is not as a handheld, it just could only work as a handheld(due to the two screens), so it really isn't targetted in anyway at the handheld market, though I'm sure people from that market will buy it.

Re:DS, PSP, Sony???

[cubicledrone]

So, why do people think the PSP is going to do well?

Because Sony is a "favored" company, like Microsoft. Nintendo is not.

Therefore Sony's entry into a market that Nintendo has a HAMMERLOCK on is "deeply troubling for the gaming giant (Nintendo)" while if Nintendo were trying to enter a market (Gamecube?) that Sony had 99.9% market share in, it would be "highly unlikely that Nintendo could succeed."

Same situation with Apple's iPod and Dell's crap-player. Dell is a favored company. Apple is not, despite the fact that Apple consistently makes better products. Dell's crap-player is therefore "a bold and innovative industry move" while Apple's best-selling iPod, arguably the most important product for the music industry in two decades is "likely to fall behind as competitors eye Apple's unusually high market share."

Amazing how easy it is to write faux-news isn't it?

It's basically the worst kind of sycophantic, half-assed, suck the money rah-rah hype-"journalism" that Dockers-wearing illiterate morons write while distracted by the piles of glittering cash these companies put on public display.

Unless a company is the undisputed leader in a market with an overwhelming market share and hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, they cannot ever be a "favored" company, and therefore all media coverage of their products will be consistently skeptical. Ahh, skepticism. So easy to criticize people who work hard to succeed.