Slashdot Mirror


Cellphone Gaming Market Lacks Pull

The Washington Post reports that, despite the best wishes of executives, the cellphone market has not yet taken off the way companies like Jamdat may have hoped for. From the article: "McAteer said the phone interface that consumers access when downloading games -- which usually lists only game titles -- is one of the biggest reasons behind the slow growth. As a result, the games that tend to sell best are those with instant name recognition among consumers, such as Pac-Man or Tetris"

17 of 54 comments (clear)

  1. market saturated at 3% (or close) by yagu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've got news for the game makers for the cell phone industry. Your market is probably close to saturated at 3%. Playing games on cell phones is a diversion, not an avocation. Users and potential buyers of games comprise a tiny fraction of the cell-phone audience. Almost any game at all, especially simple ones, will do to kill that 10 minutes wait at the train station. Anything more than a click away to add to the existing suite of games with the phone is no temptation.

    I think the cell phone industry greatly overestimates any appetite for the cell phone to be the ultimate phone, pda, gaming machine, pc, soda fountain, reference, ad nauseum. Our wallets are finite (well, mine is), and we're not going to pay and spend time managing a suite of games to play on a cell phone where

    • screen resolution sucks
    • battery life sucked up by games subtracts from cell phone availability
    • games are redundant additions to consumers existing collection on other devices

    Maybe the strategy is to find the endpoint of the consuming public's collective appetite for pay-for gaming on cell phones. I think they're close.

    1. Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) by Radres · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with just about everything you said, however I disagree with this point:

      "battery life sucked up by games subtracts from cell phone availability"

      I use my phone for playing games, and I since I charge my phone every day, I don't really notice the battery life running out as being a problem. I realize I'm not everyone, but it can be done.

    2. Re:market saturated at 3% (or close) by fistfullast33l · · Score: 2, Informative

      I completely agree. I am a Verizon subscriber (commence hate posts) and I refuse to have anything to do with their download network at $4 a pop for stuff like ringtones, games, and whatever. Plus, they charge you airtime during the day so you end up getting screwed coming and going. Until the price of content decreases somewhat ($15 a month for their music service plus $4 a song is insane) I am not going to even think about using it. Of course, Verizon takes the tactic of removing any game from your phone, essentially forcing you to buy if you want any.

      However, they have great service when it comes to their network (free calls to any Verizon Wireless subscriber) and I have very few complaints about service outage and dropped calls. My parents, brother, and fiance are on Verizon and since they're really the only people I call a lot, I rarely go over the 400 minutes a month I pay for.

      Until the price of content goes down, it'll be the lowest priority on my list when it comes to cellphone costs.

  2. because you don't own the game? by lucky130 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could it possibly be because, when you 'buy' a game, you don't get it forever at that price? You're just leasing it in x-month intervals that automatically renew and you keep getting charged.

    1. Re:because you don't own the game? by trogdor8667 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd consider it if my $5 for the cellular version of the internet included the games in its price and let me play what I want. But right now, I have to pay $5 a month for the wireless internet service, and then pay a monthly fee for a game I may play for five minutes and decide I hate.

      Which leads me to another point. I'm not going to pay [insert carrier here] $5 to play a game which I may hate, but still have to pay $5 for. Not to mention that when I switch phones, I have to pay for it again for the same month. If decent trials were provided (more than 5 minutes), I guarantee I'd buy at least one game on my cell phone, if its for a lifetime subscription. Otherwise, forget it. You're not getting that business from me.

  3. No market by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IF you have money to buy cell games, you also have money for a "real" portable game console.

    IF you can have a real game console, why bother playing on something that can, at best, recreate the experience of a C64?

    Seriously, I was pondering getting into the cell game market. But the devices simply don't have the necessary hardware to create current game. A halfway decent game fills your available memory, you have a display the size of a stamp and a resolution that makes you wonder if that what you're shooting at is supposed to be a plane or a donkey.

    Now add that half of the games won't work on YOUR cellphone, and if, your display will probably not match the one the programmer used (i.e. you'll either be missing some vital information which gets cut off or you have some black bars), i.e. a lack of interface standards to work with, add that more often than not the programmers used to create those games aren't quite the creme of game creators (most cell games are hacked together by recently graduated students, it's for most their first job ever) and you have a clean picture why the market doesn't take off:

    After the first game, you never buy one again.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:No market by Amouth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      all you need is edge and a terminal/telnet client.. i use my pda in wifi areas to muck around on muds while i wait.. kinda fun and not to bad with the thumb keyboard attachment.. as for cell phone.. i still have an old analog phone so i don't think i can get games other than "lets see how far we can throw it" or the clasic "what happens when a car runs it over"

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:No market by Radres · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best game that I found for the cell phone is a version of Texas Hold 'Em. Once you figure out the computer's betting patterns, it gets old, but up until that point it's a good tool for getting used to how conservative players play the game.

      It's amazing how complex they try to make the graphics for a simple card game. Why couldn't they just display the cards and bets in a way that I could see them? I really don't need pictures of the people I'm "playing" against.

      I also tried chess, and I'm not a great chess player and was able to beat the phone at chess even at 2 minutes per turn, and I wasn't willing to play a longer game than that.

      These days, Tetris is about the only thing worth playing on the phone when I'm waiting somewhere and have nothing else to do.

    3. Re:No market by mypalmike · · Score: 2, Funny

      a display the size of a stamp and a resolution that makes you wonder if that what you're shooting at is supposed to be a plane or a donkey.

      The developers of "Flying Donkey Storm 3" really did some amazing work. You definitely can tell you're shooting at donkeys.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
  4. Have you seen some of the game offerings? by Alpha27 · · Score: 2, Informative

    A friend of mine has the razr, and he has Star Wars Battlefront on it. I'm thinking nice, but... what exactly am I going to play on a phone for a game like that.

    It was worse than I imagined. You used your arrow keys to move the crosshair to shot enemies that popped up like a cheesy carnival game. Absolutely horrible.

    I remember the days when a cellphone was just a cellphone.

  5. Why's that, again? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not the format for buying games that keeps me from buying games on my cell phone. It's three things:

    1) Battery life. I'm not going to waste charge on gaming. I need my cell phone too much, and spend too much time without access to a charger.

    2) Cost. Considering that my Verizon game service charges something like $6-8 per game, why would I bother? Chances are I'll feel like I wasted that money -- I have better gaming experiences with stuff we wrote in BASIC and Pascal in grade school.

    3) Suckage. Besides the fact that so many games available for cell phones suck, the phone itself sucks for gaming. From screen size to processor speed to control issues, a cell phone is a sub-par mobile gaming device. If I'm going to spend $400 on a phone that handles games well, I'd just as soon buy a PSP or a DS, thank you.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  6. Too Complex by outSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or, maybe, developers are missing their mark. Some of the games are simply too complex to be fully enjoyed in a cell phone, particularly with the often whacky control layouts. I have Call of Duty on my Motorola V262, and it's a pain to play. The controls are cramped, and its just too complex to be easily enjoyed on a cell phone. Dodging bullets and shooting bad guys just wasn't meant to be on a cell phone.

    That's the reason, IMO, that Pac-Man and Tetris do so well. The controls are easy, straight forward, and the games are easy to get a hold on. Let's keep in mind that the average cell phone user probably isn't a gamer, and is looking for an easy-to-play distraction in a game on the cell phone. They don't want something complex. Pac-Man requires use of the little D-Pad (at least on my phone), and that's it. Tetris works with the D-Pad and OK button. Easy! Enjoyable! Sold!

    Cell phone developers should look at ways to take games, simplify them to work on the control layouts available for cell phones, and keep things simple. Of course, the people interested in games on cell phones will primarily be gamers, but cell phones just can't handle complex games, and they really shouldn't try to port games like CoD, Splinter Cell, or any of the other kinds. Keep it simple. I'm sure some people would even enjoy Pong, or a simplified top-down shooter like 1942. I would certainly buy one of those games. In short, cell phone developers should K.I.S.S.

  7. Yes you do. by fondue · · Score: 3, Informative

    Many providers/vendors offer games for a one off payment that you then own forever.

    The fact that you typically can't transfer the games to your new handset if/when you upgrade is another matter...

    --

    Preferences > Homepage > Customize stories on homepage > Authors > Zonk > Uncheck

  8. Another reason by jgoemat · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I don't want to pay $4 for a game that I will only play on my cellphone (and therefore won't be very fun) and that will expire in 90 days so I'll have to pay again. Ridiculous...

    How hard would it be to have trial versions that only give you a couple of levels or that expire after a few days?

  9. I totally agree by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Just this week I was looking for a cellphone game to waste some time while waiting around, and the interface was almost completely useless. For reference this is the Verizon Get-It-Now network. The categories - and there are many of them - aren't what you see at online gaming stores or sites, plus if a game falls into two categories it's still only listed in one place. There is no search feature to find out if the game you want is even offered, forcing you to look through every catergory since it might be in a different one than you expect.

    Plus who is writing the descriptions for these games? They tell you almost nothing about them, and since the trial version is usually $2 to $4 it's a pretty big expense just to see if you even like the game. A screenshot at the very least would be extremely helpful, but perhaps a 5 second demo clip, or even a [gasp!] free 10 minute trial would entice people to buy more games since it wouldn't be such a shot in the dark.

    Also I don't know about what other carriers offer but I just don't understand how the widely popular PopCap games aren't offered. I believe they license to Microsoft, but either way someone is missing out on a lucrative phone game market on that end. I think popcap games would be perfect for a phone - quick, colorful, insanely addictive, and completely a temporary distraction, easy to pick up and no need to desperately save your place.

    Who knows? Maybe all of those games and more ARE available right now, but I'll never know because I'm never going to pay $4 just to find out if SuperUltraMegaShapeBlaster is something I'd like to play.

    --
    -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
  10. Idiot companies by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The cellphone companies need to realize that people don't want to pay $5 per game. That is an ABSURD price for what amounts to a free Flash game. Top that off with the fact that they expect you to plop down money on the game when all you know about it is the title and a brief uninformative description if you're lucky.

    In the information age, people making game purchasing decisions where they are actually expected to pay money (and $5 is not insignificant) expect to have reviews, screenshots, possibly even videos at their fingertips to educate them before they make their purchasing decision.

    Of course I'm sure the cell companies are reluctant to supply that otherwise everybody would know what utter crap 99.9% of those games are.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  11. And now, a different perspective... by ilyaaohell · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work for one of the top cellphone game developers, and I have a different perspective on this than you guys. It's amazing how many nay-sayers there are here, despite the fact that the cellphone gaming market is one of the most fastest-growing gaming industries today. My company, for example, has operated for several years and in just the last year had increased their profits by several hundred percent. In just the first quarter of THIS year, we've just announced that our revenue is up by another 50%, and right now the sky's the limit.

    Yes, many games aren't ideally suited for the cell phone's controls, but considering that many of our games are 3D and have the graphical levels equivalent to a PS1, to say that the games look like "Atari" or whatever some of you guys have been saying is ridiculous. All I'm saying is that citing technical limitations when commenting against the cell phone game industry is ridiculous and shows just how out of touch you are with the technology that is already out there and owned by millions of people RIGHT NOW. Just because you or your friends are stuck with something like a Samsung A620 or an old Razr model doesn't mean that many other people own better devices.

    The days of slowly-refreshing LCD displays and pitiful resolutions are over. Yes, those phones still come out, and they're given out like candy to the lowest-paying customers, but many people already have extremely high-performing phones (LG 8100 is one of my favorites). The resolution is very high (considering the size of the screen) and with recent announcements by some graphics hardware manufacturers of increasing their cell phone presense, expect cell phones to become exponentially more powerful in the very near future.

    As far as controls go, we're now seeing ergonomically-designed phones like the LG 9800 (look this beauty up) that are the size of normal phones but, when flipped open, have a full QWERTY keyboard and directional pads that work great for gaming. The number of models that work like this is, again, going to increase, just like the hardware performance has been increasing at an astronomical pace in just the last 3 years. So yes, maybe some games aren't suited for SOME current phone models yet, but there are already devices out there that ARE, and the number of these models will only increase.

    Now, I grant you that the pricing scheme of "renting" games, and the fact that cell phone carriers do a piss-poor job of marketing the content, stands in the way of wider availability. But to say that there's no market out there (when it's growth has yet to slow down) or that the games suck (read the reviews, many of these games are critically-acclaimed), or that the hardware isn't suited for gaming (look at all the MODERN phones coming out now, and all the phones that will be out in a year or two) is RIDICULOUS and shows nothing but ignorance on your part.

    Mobile gaming isn't for everyone, and the best sellers will likely always be quick puzzle games and 2D platformers, but that doesn't mean that millions of people don't want to buy them (they do, and more will in the future), or that these games can't be wonderfully-designed, or that they all have to look like Pong.

    --
    UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.