The Video Game Blog

How changing gaming habits may dampen the party for Xbox One and PS4?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 12:04:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Xbox One and PS4 are here and looking at the look of things, they don’t seem to be going away in a hurry. Both the consoles are selling like hot cakes with each able to rack up sales of 1 million units in just 24 hours. Those are impressive numbers for any consumer device. There have been estimates that both the consoles would be easily able to outsell their predecessor. Going by that estimation, the newly launched consoles are going to be huge hits considering the fact that both Xbox 360 and PS3 have managed to sell around 80 million units individually. Those are big numbers.

All seem to be rosy for MS and Sony but is it really so? I mean, yes the new consoles have got a rousing reception but is that not also due to the huge pent up demand that has been building for the last 3 years. This has been the longest console cycle ever, extending well over 3 years from the generally accepted norm. That has resulted in a huge demand for new hardware for the devoted fan boys. Considering these theories, it was almost certain that whenever a new console is launched, it would be greeted with open arms. And that has happened. So what’s next?

A lot has changed over the last 8 years when the Xbox 360 was launched. For one, a certain Apple along with its quarreling sibling, the Android, has captured and ruled over the attention of the masses. Gaming has evolved from being confined to the living room to be present on train, stations, offices, shopping malls and practically everywhere humans have been. Simply put, the gaming habit of the average gamer has evolved. The smartphone and the tablet along with the consoles have become the main gaming machines. Yes, it is true that the level of engagement or the kind of games is not the same when mobile gaming is compared to consoles. But that does not take away from the fact that people are getting their compulsory doses of gaming away from their consoles. Also mobile games are doing an increasingly good job at delivering nearly the same kind of experience as got from a console game. Not same but nearly. Games like Reptide GP or Prince of Persia Shadows & Flames allow me to have a deep gaming experience without switching on my console.

A lot may say that mobiles would never be able to catch up to the kind of games that consoles deliver

and I would agree with them. But the question is that are we really concerned about the hardcore devoted gamer who crave for that kind of experience? He will anyway play on his console. But what about the not so devoted gamer? If he is getting nearly the same kind of experience at a fraction of the cost and at his choice of convenience, it would be tough ask to compel him to invest hundreds of dollars on a new gaming device. Many gamers game because it allows them to escape their routine life and get into a world of fantasy. If their phones are allowing them to do just that whenever they please to, would they be willing to go back to their consoles? The answer is not absolute but it’s a “Maybe No”.

It’s not all gloomy for consoles. I think that they would survive and grow as well but maybe not at the same pace at which they have grown over the past generations. They would need to do things differently this time around. For one, they would need to integrate the different mobile devices as second screens in their platforms. The mobile devices need to be an important integrated part of the consoles. Games need to designed and developed in such a way that they would make use of both the consoles as well as the user’s smartphone. The experience needs to be connected. For Microsoft, the Surface and Windows 8 phones become so much more important. The same goes for Sony’s PS Vita. If they can find some way to meaningfully integrate the mobile devices in their whole ecosystem, gamers may see a lot of added value in buying the new consoles.

While doing so, both Xbox One and PS4 need to deliver better & more of what they have been known for: great quality games. They need to up the ante so much that the gamers would find the difference in quality between the mobile and console games big enough. That would make it much harder for them to ignore the consoles. Bigger better games should be a huge help for the consoles. They would also need to give a lot of space to the Indies as that’s where the real innovation lies. Again care would need to balance the price point with the value offering so as not to dilute the value of their bigger brother, the AAA games.

With so much going on in the industry, so many new developments almost everyday, it would be very difficult for anyone to guess one clear-cut winner. The whole ecosystem is changing, and changing fast. The one who would be able to adjust and adapt would be the one who is more likely to succeed. Change is here and its forever. In the famous words of Friedrich Nietzsche: “The snake which cannot cast its skin has to die. As well the minds which are prevented from changing their opinions; they cease to be mind.”

Siddharth has been playing games since forever and loves it so much so he decided to make a profession out of it. After completing his MBA, he decided to join EA to learn the ropes of the industry. A Game Producer and Game Designer by profession, while not playing games, he loves to read about them, watch movies and spend quality time with his family. His passion for writing led to the creation of this blog.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Why do we need PS4 and Xbox One to succeed?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:31:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

We are on the doorstep of the next generation of consoles. Both Xbox One and PS4 would be launched within a month to eagerly awaiting gamers. Massive number of both the consoles has been preordered. The estimate is that the number of preorder is at least 2 times more than the last generation. Going by the media hype, the coming generation promises to get a huge launch, with both the consoles selling millions of units.

However, this success would continue for a long term is another question all together. A lot would depend on how the consoles can differentiate from one another in terms of feature sets, the kind of games and software that they are going to make available and the overall value they can provide. I am sure that both the companies with their extensive marketing and research teams would have figured these points out, at least in their strategies.

Personally, I believe that it’s really important for both the consoles to succeed in the coming generation. There are multitudes of reasons for believing so. One of the major reason why I want the generation to succeed is that it has the capacity to really expand the revenue potential of the industry. Along with increasing the revenue of the industry, it also stands to bring new kinds of integrations between software and hardware, especially considering the fact that both the consoles are being touted as entertainment devices fit for the living room. The last boom enjoyed by the industry was when the last console generation was launched, back in 2005. The upcoming generation promises to bring the good times again.

A host of platforms have emerged since the launch of the last generation of consoles. Companies, which were primarily developing for consoles are now also developing for all kinds of platforms, like IOS, Android and Social. The success enjoyed by the upcoming generation would bring in a lot more money, which can be invested in developing great games for these platforms. The whole industry would benefit from the success of one segment just like the success of mobile gaming has allowed companies to sustain in consoles during the last 2 years. It’s a win-win situation for all the different segments of the industry.

What more could the success of Xbox One and PS4 bring to the industry? Mobile gaming can learn a lot from console gaming like AAA production values, the different ways in which player engagement

can be implemented which allows console games to hook on the players for hours, the art of story telling. There are a lot of things that can be learnt from consoles. Consoles could also learn a lot from mobile gaming, especially in the way the games can be socially integrated along with adoption of different business models. The only way this learning process can continue is if the two very different segments co-exist.

As a gamer, I would really love for Xbox One and PS4 to succeed. They are the epitome of gaming and allow me to have and play games that are just not possible on any other platform. It keeps the gamer inside me alive and kicking. Don’t get me wrong. I love mobile gaming. Clash of clans, Deer Hunter, Dead Trigger, Cut the Rope are some of my favorite games of all time. I love playing them. But they are not Call of Duty, GTA, Battlefield and they would never be. These are the games that top everything else I would want to do in my spare time. And I would want to keep on having them forever. Mobile gaming, though brilliant, still doesn’t have the legs or the shoulders to carry the industry. For the sake of diversity that allows so many different kinds of experiences for the same player, lets just hope that both Xbox One and PS4 are a huge success, endearing us for many more years to come. Looking forward to the good times again.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Xbox One DVR feature: Possibilities and Pitfalls

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 14:50:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Xbox One will be launching on November 22, right at the doorstep of Christmas. However it would be facing stiff competition from Sony’s PS4 which would be launching a week before on November 15th in US. This is going to be one hell of a battle where each would be trying to outdo the other in the bid to garner as much attention as possible. Each would be bringing along their own set of amazing features with a hope that they are able to bring some amount of differentiation in the minds of the player. Armed with a host of launch titles, both Microsoft and Sony are bullish that this is going to be the biggest console launch in history.

There is no doubt that both the consoles have some amazing features and capabilities that allow the player to have amazing new experiences. One such feature that Xbox One brings is the DVR. The new Game DVR feature keeps a rolling video of the last five minutes of gameplay, so you can share it online or with your friends. Some games come complete with an Upload Studio feature that lets you edit clips and add effects or voice over before uploading. What would this possibly mean for the individual gamer as well as the industry on the whole?

For starters, it allows gamers to capture and share their gameplay footage with a lot more ease. There would be no more requirement for gamers to get additional software and hardware to capture their gaming clips. It becomes much easier for the not too tech savvy player to capture video game footage and share with friends and family. This would increase the number of player uploading game footage to websites like youtube. How would this help the gaming industry? Increased exposure to gaming clips and the ability to share would definitely increase the chances that people may pick up a lot of games that their friends are playing.

It also allows the gamers to do a lot more with their games and increases the engagement factor. People can play tutor and load multiple walkthroughs of the difficult portions of the game. A lot of people would do so to either help their fellow gamers or boast of their incredible gaming skill. Either way, it would mean a higher engagement level with their game. The ability to share video clips would be specially helpful in games where there are multiplayer modes. I for one would love to upload a video of me getting the better of my friend in our favorite Battlefield game. It is just so much more fun.

The ability to record and share video also does a lot of good for the console as well as the industry on the whole. It would make the console a much more socially integrated device, something which has been a bone of contention for a lot of people in the current generation. It would also give a lot of freedom to game designers to come up with scenarios where the player can share video content with his peers. Different gameplay scenarios can be designed keeping in mind this particular feature. That being said, care would need to be taken while designing the game to keep the action balanced or else too many over the top action sequences would creep into the game just to cater to this feature.

The feature to capture and share video clips would also put a lot of pressure on game developers to really improve the cinematic quality of their games. Some games don’t actually require a heavy emphasis on graphics but this feature may tempt a lot of developers, especially the ones working under the influence of a traditional publisher to go that way, considering the marketing potential of social sharing. A delicate balance would need to be maintained while developing games keeping the video sharing feature in mind or else there lies a danger of skewing the gameplay.

The feature has a lot of potential to do good. It not only allows player to get more engaged with their games but also give the developers the opportunity to bring a lot more in their game. The scope it provides for marketing, word of mouth and social interaction is immense. The final piece in this puzzle can be the kind of integration it can have with the different social networks. The success of this feature would also depend on one factor, its ease of use and manageability. If Microsoft is able to nail down these factor, it would be a huge boost for their console as well as for the industry as a whole.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Importance of balancing your Game for Monetization

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Sat, 02 Nov 2013 11:22:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

I read a recent article, which talked about the newly released IOS game, Batman Arkham Origins. The main focus of the article was the monetization of the game and how even when the game is well appreciated & free, it is not among the top grossing games in the market. That article brought a lot of my attention to the tricky subject of designing the monetization model of your game.

Free to play has been hugely instrumental in bringing a lot of new players in the ecosystem. It has also allowed developers to get more revenue for their games just on the basis of huge number of downloads. However, if not done right, the free to play model can have a damaging effect on the developer’s revenue. Care should be taken to design the monetization model in such a way that it allows the player to play & enjoy the game as it is supposed to be while also giving him incentive to spend money in the game.

The primary target for any game designer should be to make his game as fun as possible. The attention should never deviate from this aspect of game development. Too many times in the pursuit for increasing the spending of the player, designers put a lot of restrictions in front of the player hence eroding the fun factor. This should never be the case. Once the game is made fun to play, the next step should invariably be to develop the monetization model around the game.

There are different ways in which the monetization model can be designed. A lot of free to play games are often Pay to Win games where the only way for the player to win the game or remain competitive is to spend money in the game. This often leads to frustrated players who leave the game before it has a chance to impress them. Pay to Win takes away the competitive factor based on skill which has always been one of the most important factors in games. May the best man win just doesn’t apply in this scenario. I have always believed that monetization model should be designed in such a way that it allows the player to enjoy the game uninhibited, just based on skill. There can be other ways to increase player spending which would allow the player to have more of the fun he is having rather than restricting his progress. This can surely be in the terms of buying better weapons or powers but they should not be definitely required if the player is skilled enough to win without them.

Advertisements are another way in which developers can successfully monetize their games. There are multiple different ways in which advertisements can be implemented in games. The way in which advertisement is implemented should be dependent on the kind of gameplay. Again, gameplay & fun is the most important factor to be considered here. Advertisements should not be intrusive to the game. For example, in a game where the player has to play with a lot of concentration, banner ads may not be the most profitable option, as the player would seldom pay attention to them. Also it may appear intrusive to the gameplay. In this case, full-page ads can be much more viable. Banner ads should best be used in games where on the main game screen; there is a lot of free space, which can be utilized. The frequency of ads would also be important, especially when full-page ads are concerned. It would appear common sense that full-page ads should not appear in the main game but you would be surprised to know that’s not always the case. I have played numerous games where after starting the game, a full-page ad pops up in the middle of the game, disrupting my experience. It’s very annoying to say the least.

There are a lot of free games in the market that are extremely fun to play but don’t earn enough money for their developers just because the monetization model was weak. On the other hand, a lot of very high potential games are killed just when the journey with the player has started because of the frequent insistence to spend money. The most successful games are those who are successful in forming an efficient partnership between fun and monetization, without one coming in the way of another. This however is easier said than done but if some games can do it, so can others.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Gaming on the Go: How connected experiences would shape this industry

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:35:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

EA announced recently that it’s working on a high end Battlefield game for mobile. As per a report on Polygon: "We are working on a mobile game of Battlefield that will be high-end and high performance," Gibeau said. "It's our bet that we can successfully pull that off. But we're embarking on something no one has ever done before — to get these games to inter-operate between platforms. Will it work? It already has in some cases. Will it work for all franchises? Not all franchises will make the transition. Battlefield might be a little harder." What does it mean for gaming? Is it the advent of something new or just an announcement to create the hype?

With the evolution of games, the increase in the number of gamers & the proliferation of the variety of devices, I believe that the next possible step in evolution should be the games that people can play across the different platforms available. What would be awesome is that I can stop playing my favorite game on my console, switch it off and then on the way to my office, I can pick the game up again on my iphone. That would be completely awesome. It would allow me the chance to keep on playing my favorite game without the breaks enforced by the platform restrictions. “The player should never stop playing”, this is the dream of every game developer. Making the game functional across different platforms would be a huge step in this direction.

How would this be beneficial to the developer? I think the answer is obvious that it would allow the players to have a continuous experience. But is the extra effort required to make the game cross platform justified? I think so. The biggest problem that most games face is the number of competition for the limited gaming time of the player. This holds true especially for console games which is facing huge amount of competition from mobile games that offer great affordable experience. If the console games can somehow manage to take up the time spent by its player on mobile in playing their own games, I guess they would be in a much better situation as far as competing for the game time is concerned.

The benefit for making games cross platform are huge but they should not be forced for all kinds of games. I think the mobile counterpart of the console games should be able to offer quality experience & value addition to the overall game. If not then it would appear forced and would be quickly shunted by the community. It would work best where there is a lot of social interaction or where the player can decide on some strategy for the upcoming mission. Lets take an example to elaborate this point. Consider making a first person shooter where the player has to go through the different missions. While the main game would be played on the console at home which would involve most of the action, the player can take up various other parts of the game like procuring ammo, training the character to acquire different skills or getting help from allies (could be a social component) on their smart phones. This would allow a continuous experience & hence be involved with their favorite game longer. A win-win situation for both the developer & the player.

While creating these kind of connected experiences, some more points would need to be taken care of. The mobile experiences should be designed in such a way that it would be run on different kind of devices. It should not be too process intensive that it is compatible with only a few high-end configurations else it runs the danger of not being mass adopted. Also it should not given an undue advantage to a gamer with a high-end mobile device as compared to someone with a simpler smartphone. If the platform or the OS is the same, it should provide the same experience.

Connected experiences would be a huge step forward for gaming. I would love to play a game or enjoy a universe that doesn’t make me stop just because I am not at home or not connected to a particular system. I would love to keep on playing, only stopping when I want to & I believe there are many more like me. Hopefully the great minds in this industry would manage to come up with something that fulfills just that & take the giant leap forward.

Please subscribe to get the latest updates if you like the post. Thanks :)

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Why Free to Play is not always a solution?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:19:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

The date was June 29^th, 2007 when the future of gaming was changed forever. One guy by the name of Steve Jobs with a vision & the backing of an incredible team gave to the world the iphone. The phone changed the landscape of handheld devices forever. It was revolutionary, it was inspired and it brought high quality games in the hands of millions of people.

Gaming changed forever and for the good. It brought the masses to an industry, which has always been considered niche when compared to other mass entertainment mediums. It made gaming mainstream. The industry grew leaps and bounds and a new set of developers and gamers emerged. There is no doubt that iphone and subsequently Android have played a huge role in bringing the gaming industry to where it is today.

There was however one more catalyst that increased the pace of change. The introduction of Free to Play. Free to Play games has been the single biggest factor that has helped to increase the number of people playing more and more games on their mobile devices. It has reduced the barrier to entry to mobile games. True that Free to Play is not a new concept and has been in games for ages. But it has been adopted whole-heartedly by the masses in the form of mobile free to play games.

Where mobile has made gaming casual, Free to Play has made the process of getting new games casual as well. Now players don’t think twice before downloading a game if it is free, as he has nothing to lose. This has led to huge download numbers for games and coupled up with unique business models like In-App Purchases and Advertisement, it has allowed developers to rack huge amount of revenue. This burgeoning success of the Free to Play model has led to almost everyone believe that Free to Play is the only model of success to be followed, specially on platforms like Android. Some major publishers like EA have actually gone to lengths to say that Free to Play would be their major strategy going forward for all games to be released on mobile.

But is Free to Play the solution to all kind of games? I don’t think so. Games are experiences, very unique ones where the gamer not only accepts stimulus but also actively responds to it hence altering the whole environment, which produces the stimulus in the first place. This kind of highly evolved entertainment cannot be restricted to a single medium of presentation. If it were done, it would seriously limit the way the medium is enjoyed by the players. Also Free to Play is suited for those kinds of games, which can go on for a long period of time. Games, which rely a lot on storytelling, for example would not be best suited to Free to Play model. How can a story keep on going forever? There has to be an ending. And if the story ends, which in turn means the end of the game; it would not be the ideal situation for a Free to Play game.

Free to Play has also come under a lot of criticism by people saying that it is necessarily evil that it wants to extort money out of people by all different means. Well, I don’t completely buy into this argument as it also allows people to try a lot more games and then pay for those games that sit nicely with their likings. However, a lot of developers have been guilty to producing games that are undercooked or don’t offer the whole feature package with the intent of making players to pay money. This is unwarranted as players should be willing to pay money to get more of the awesome experience they are already getting, rather than pay money to just taste the whole experience. This shouldn’t be the case and if this persists, it would just erode value in the eyes of gamers.

A lot of developers have credited Free to Play as the single biggest factor for the increase in their revenue. This is true for most of the cases. But lets not forget the point that Free to Play also brings along with it different requirements like the requirement to support the game for a long period of time with constant updates and bug fixes. With the whole ecosystem changing so frequently, it is a herculean task to keep on updating your game. This becomes that much more difficult and financially unviable if the number of DAUs is not big enough to warrant the investment in terms of ROI. But then if you don’t provide the constant updates & the bug fixes, you tend to unnerve your current player base. This seems to be a precarious situation for many developers.

There is no doubt that Free to Play is an amazing model as it allows both the player as well as the developer a lot of freedom. It has taken the industry to unseen heights in terms of player engagement. But is it the answer to all kind of games. Highly unlikely. This industry would be best served if the different models co-exist together so that they can serve their requirement as & when required. I would like to end this with a quote from George R.R. Martin (A Game of Thrones): “Different roads sometimes lead to the same Castle” which perfectly explains the differences in business models yet the common ground sought by them.

Please subscribe to get latest updates if you like the post. Thanks :)

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Look Mama: No Gate!!

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:47:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Closed market or Open, the debate about which is better for the gamer as well as the publishers has been a long-standing one in the gaming domain. Its one topic that brings out the strongest emotions in their supporters who often have never ending points to prove their case. It is one debate that has picked up pace again with Valve coming up with their own apparently open system in Steam Box. Set to go one-on-one against the next generation consoles like Xbox One & PS4 to compete for space in the living room, Valve’s Steam Box has a lot to prove before it can be proclaimed as the decisive winner.

Each has their own benefits, both for the gamer as well as the developers. Each has their own merits and is suited to succeed, depending on the needs. Open systems are generally more open to new and innovative ideas. Since there are no gatekeepers that can prevent radical ideas from getting into the system, it allows for people to implement their ideas, which are often rejected at the doors of closed systems. It allows developers to move away from the proven formula and dwell into something more unknown. Yes it may result into very weird ideas, but often gems come out of these so-called experiments. This kind of result is often more difficult to achieve in closed systems where every idea is evaluated by the owners of the market for conformity to their own set of rule. Needless to mention that Open markets grow at speeds often unmatched by closed markets.

The freedom to come up with new kind of ideas often comes with their own cost in the form of games, which are nothing, more that trash. Games, which appear extraordinary in the minds of the developers don’t necessarily come out in the same way. With no gatekeepers, there is no way to stop these games from getting in the hands of the gamers. This doesn’t help the reputation of the market. Not only gamers but also this is not helpful to the developers as the huge amount of unregulated games often make it difficult for the deserving ones to be easily discoverable. This in turn affects the profitability of the games, which results in discouraged developers. This is where closed markets have a distinctive advantage as they are better equipped to monitor the quality of their games as well as their discoverability, which gives more financial motivation to professional developers.

Closed markets often have lesser amount of games, but have better average quality. This draws in more players as they are more assured of the games they spend their money on. Since the discover ability of the games is better & only better quality games are entertained, these kinds of markets are more attractive to the professional developers. This leads to an ecosystem, which is supportive of the development community as well as the gamers.

Closed markets also allow for much more control over how the market shapes up in the long run as compared to open markets. It is mainly because bringing change in the way of functioning of the market keeping in mind the ever-changing landscape is much easier in closed markets as compared to open markets because of inertia. It also allows for better development of business models & practices, which in turn helps the whole community.

Practically speaking, completely open markets are more of an ideal as compared to reality. Take Steam Box for instance. Yes the hardware is very open in nature that allows the players to install any OS of their choice or even configure their own Steam Boxes. But is the Steam marketplace truly open in nature. The recent struggles and disappointments of a lot of Indie developers point out otherwise. For gaming to really succeed, there need to be a balanced mix of properties of open and closed markets so that the community can benefit from both. Hopefully with time, Valve will get the heady mixture just right for the sake of us all. Until then, let’s keep our fingers crossed.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

What does the success of GTA 5 mean for the industry?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:18:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

GTA 5 is out, GTA 5 is awesome and GTA 5 is selling like hot cakes. One of the highest rated games on Metacritic; the game has proved to be a darling for both the critics as well as the masses. Proof of the fact is it’s sales figure that has never been seen before on Xbox 360 and PS3. GTA 5 has managed to gross a billion dollars in just 3 days & thus has become the biggest entertainment launch in history, turning the attention completely from casual gaming to console hardcore gaming among the gaming fraternity.

But the game is not without controversies. The game has been branded as misogynist by the haters with a lot of people generally despising its portrayal of women. True the game may contain content that may not be acceptable to a huge population but the sales and ratings show that the same content is highly appreciated by another huge set of people. That being said, the success of GTA 5 is great news of the industry as it goes on to prove a few things.

1. Consoles are not dead: First and foremost, the humongous sales of GTA 5 show that the console industry is far from dead. It is in fact living with plenty of great signs of glowing pink health in the future. GTA 5 proves that if you are willing to take the risks, invest huge amounts of money (nearly $250 million) in development & come up with a game which is excellent in all aspects, you are not only going to recover your investment but also net a huge pile of profit. It replaces faith back on the good old days of game making where the developers didn’t really care about the quick hot noodle type of game making where the mantra of success lied in getting the game out as quickly as possible in the market without investing too much time & resources in it so that if it fails, we don’t lose a lot of money. GTA 5 proves again that if you were ready to bit your time to deliver a finely tuned game, audience would flock to it.

Yes, it is a proven franchise. True that it already has it set of loyal followers. But the adage that quality sells holds true today even for newer franchises. Look at the success of games like The Last of Us and Dishonored. Quality games that have not only sold well but have also given rise to franchises with much more potential for the future.

2. Being different is good: Secondly it provides evidence that success in this industry would not only come by making games keeping the masses in mind. Niche games, which can be controversial and not according to the taste of the masses can also sell huge numbers and make a lot of money. There have been many controversies about GTA 5 with a lot of people against the general theme of the game. But there is also another set of people who love to play these kinds of games, do stuff in the game that they would not want to do in the real world. These games have their own set of audience with a lot of them being extremely loyal. It creates high potential franchises as they find it much easier to differentiate from the crowd. Not every game needs to focus on the largest possible customer base as companies like EA and Activision has not faced the test of time by just creating casual games.

3. Diverse audience tastes: Thirdly, the success of GTA 5 is heartening as it suggests that gaming has a very wide audience base with different tastes. It is very important for any medium to provide different kind of content, which would be acceptable to different kind of people. This is really important for the mass acceptance of the medium. When more games like Angry Birds that cater to the casual audience, primarily female and kids & games like GTA 5, which mainly focus on the male gamers, succeed, it expands the horizon of gaming and brings more people into the industry. More and diverse kind of people trying and hooking to games can only be great news for the industry.

GTA 5 is controversial but so was Da Vinci Code. Controversy sells as it allows you to be recognized. GTA 5 is different but so was Thank You For Smoking. Its important as it protects you from getting lost in the crowd. And GTA 5 is great content. And we all know that “Great Content” always finds its own audience.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

What would be the fate of PS Vita TV & other Microconsoles?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 09:22:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

I bet if you open up any gaming website, you would definitely see at least a small coverage of a new consoles, either one of the big players or one of the new microconsoles. The gaming industry has been busy spreading its wings to cover the masses since the advent of the smartphone gaming phenomena, and the recent announcements of a host of new microconsoles based on android and otherwise is just another step in that direction. But the question that begs to be answered is whether these new breed of consoles would really entice the audience in loosening their purse strings.

Before we dwell into any discussion lets first understand the typical gamer and his preferred gaming machine. In gaming today, we can primarily divide the gaming masses in particularly two kind of players, the one who loves mostly hardcore consoles games and the other more casual player who is really fond of his Cut the Rope on his Tegra powered smartphone. This demarcation doesn’t mean that one doesn’t play the other type of game. In fact it is increasingly evident that more and more people are playing both kinds of games, people are playing more on their consoles and are also downloading more games on their smartphones. But does that mean that their expectations are the same when they game on these different devices. I bet they are very different.

When a person plugs in his console in his high definition TV, he is expecting to play a game, which is formed in a world hugely detailed and expansive and offers him a deeper gameplay experience. On the other hand, when he starts a game on his smartphone, generally he is looking just to kill time with that fun immersive game with very short play sessions. The experience that he expects to get as well as the time he is willing to invest in both the above cases is vastly different. This is where I believe that Microconsoles would struggle to find a foothold in the market.

Microconsoles aim to bridge the gap and bring the kind of games that are generally played on the run onto the TV screen. The games which are generally built with a very different expectation & which aims to offer the player a very different experience as compared to console games. The player would need to plug in his micro console into the TV, boot it up and then start playing the game, basically follow the same procedure that he can do for booting up his dedicated game console which would offer him a much more evolved game. Why would a person spend an equal amount of energy & time to access something which is inferior when he can do the same thing to access something much more superior?

Some may say that the games on these microconsoles are much simpler and casual to understand than the console games, which may prompt a lot of people to buy these systems. I would say that I don’t really visualize someone spending extra money to buy a system that plays the same games, which are already present on his phone. They may do so if their favorite phone games look much better on a larger TV screen, which brings me to my next question. Making a game look much better on a larger screen would involve much more development effort from developers. I wonder if a lot of developers are willing to put in the extra days to upgrade their games for systems that have a lesser-installed base and also in some instances are lesser powerful than even the phones.

The case may be a little different for PS Vita TV as compared to other micro consoles. PS Vita TV brings along with it a huge catalogue of 1000+ games including some of the awesome PS1 games, which can be a huge incentive for the gamer. The difference between PS Vita TV and other Micro consoles is the already available catalogue of titles for it. Also Gakai is coming to PS4 and if Sony adds that functionality to PS Vita TV, it can be a winner. Also the ability to add a second screen functionality to PS4 as well as a low cost video streaming device for your TV (read Netflix), PS Vita TV may well be a good value proposition.

The Android based Micro Consoles are facing an uphill task. They are getting into a space which is generally occupied with more high end gaming consoles and trying to entice users who are generally accustomed to gaming on their much more accessible smartphones. It would be interesting to see how they are going to generate demand and how they are going to place their USP. At present, they are in the middle of nowhere & they would need to come up quickly with their unique place in the landscape before the hype quickly dies.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Bring In More: Why are mobile gamers good for consoles?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 14:00:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Mobile gaming is on the rise. There is no doubt about it. I read recent news that the number of new shipments of smartphones is going to touch the coveted 1 billion mark for 2013. The same news pointed out that in all probability, by the end of 2017, almost the whole world would be using smartphones with near 100% penetration. What does it mean for the gaming industry? With gaming segment being the highest revenue generator unanimously for all the app stores, I think it is pretty evident, that the graph is going to go only up.

Mobile gaming is only going to grow in the coming years. With more and more phones being delivered in the hands of the people, more and more people are going to download apps, particularly games and a lot of them are going to turn into gamers. This would have only one effect on the mobile gaming industry. It would rise, both in terms of revenue and user base.

The dynamics of the industry is going to change. Consoles, who have been the big daddy for a long long time now may not command the same leading position. That position may soon be occupied by mobile gaming, just on the basis of its sheer size of user base. But is the advent of mobile gaming really bad news for console gaming. Yes, in all probability, console gaming may not the top honcho. Yes, it may not be the one calling the shots in the industry. But is this change really something that the console gaming would mind.

I believe that they should be more than happy with this change. I believe that the more the number of mobile gamers, the more it would benefit consoles. Lets look closer to understand my reasons. But before we do that, lets define what I truly mean by console gaming and mobile gaming. Gaming for me is just about the kind of experience they are giving to the player. Consoles present complex world where the player has multiple choices with varying decisions to make. On the other hand, mobile gaming provides the player with a window to escape the boredom by providing him with gameplay experience, which is fun but doesn’t involve a lot of complexity. The experience offered by mobile gaming is basically a diluted version of the console games. If this comparison doesn’t seem right, just compare the games released on consoles and mobile simultaneously like Battlefield or Street Fighter 4.

If we understand that both consoles and mobile offer the player different kinds of experiences, we can understand that sooner than later a person would want to graduate from something which is simplistic to something with is more challenging (which may equate to more fun in gaming) and hence offers the same experience on a larger scale. If that’s the case, sooner than later people are going to graduate from their mobile games to consoles in search of much better experiences. Isn’t that how humans have gradually evolved over the years? Seeking to better their experience. Look at the quality of your everyday appliances like the TV or the mobile phone. Wasn’t CRT TVs the norm 10 years ago? Is that not the reason why automobiles took place of horse carriages, because they can do so much more? Humans are always in search of better experiences.

In case of gaming, it would be the other way around. Consoles came earlier offering great experiences but somehow they were not adopted by the masses, primarily because they were so complex to understand. Now mobile has entered the fray, simplifying the experience, which has drawn in the crowd. People are getting exposed to a simpler experience and once they would get used to it, they are bound to seek out for grander experiences just like most humans do. That’s when they would migrate to consoles. I believe that it doesn’t matter who is number one, mobile or consoles, till the time the whole pie gets bigger. And the fact that PS4 and Xbox One have attracted the biggest pre order in the history of console gaming may just mean that the pie is not only getting bigger, but also tastier.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Synchronous Vs Asynchronous gameplay in Online Games

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:10:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Lately there has been a lot of talk of implementing Synchronous gameplay in online games. Synchronous gameplay would pit human players against each other reducing the role of AI whereas Asynchronous gameplay works on the idea of pitting the player against the AI when the human player is not available (which is most often the case in online social games).

It is being said that by doing so, the developers would be providing the players with a lot of variety in gameplay as human players are much better in responding with different solutions to the same problem as compared to the AI.

After reading a plethora of articles advocating the same, it got me thinking as how much an improvement it would be in terms of gameplay experience when synchronous gameplay would become the norm.

It made me go over my experience as an online gamer and what was the difference in my experience while playing with a human opponent versus that while playing against the AI. I have to admit that the experience was mixed; sometimes it was incredibly different and better whereas sometimes it was just the same.

Why was it? Is it because the quality of human players I faced was different or was it something else embedded into the game? I believe it is the game which makes the difference whether synchronous gameplay would be better or just the same.

Let me take an example of games of the same kind but having different experiences when synchronous gameplay is concerned. First example is FIFA by EA. In this football game, playing with a human opponent offers a much more challenge as compared to playing with an AI.

On the other hand there is another football game GolMania which is on Facebook. In this particular game, the experience is much not different. Why is it so? The difference is in the kind of choices the game offers to the players. In Fifa, the choices being offered to the player are much more varied as compared to in GolMania.

In Fifa, you are in charge of a whole team of 11 players playing on a wide field and the number of things that you can do are enormous. You can choose to defend or attack and the strategic choices are numerous. When there are so many different choices being offered, the experience would be much more engaging when playing against a human opponent as compared to playing with an AI as a human would be able to take much more interesting decision which are going to have a more profound effect on not only the state of your game but also on the way you are strategizing.

The game GolMania would put you in charge of 4 players in a team and there is not much strategizing involved rather than running up the field and trying to score a goal. When there are not a lot of interesting choices to be made, it doesn’t matter if these are being made by a human or the AI as the decisions would be a lot similar as the options are limited.

I believe that Synchronous gameplay is going to play a huge role in the future of online games as the games become more and more complex in nature. When games like Call of Duty or Age of Empires are going to be played on social networking sites, synchronous gameplay would be much more engaging than asynchronous as the decisions by an human opponent would always be much more interesting that an AI opponent.

But for the difference to be noticeable and for Synchronous gameplay to be effective, we need to devise games which are capable of offering the players with interesting choices to make, to be able to decide between attack or defend, to befriend or to make enemy, to not only decide which resource is most important to generate but different ways to generating that most important resources. Unless that happens, unless we offer these interesting choices, it is futile to discuss which is better Synchronous or Asynchronous, as the outcome would be similar.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Add the spice of Fun to your Games

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Sun, 04 Aug 2013 16:22:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

What is fun and how do we define it? We all know that games should be fun and we know that a game is fun when we have just played it for a minute. If we all know what is fun and what feels like it, why as a community of game developers have we often failed to produce games, which are fun to a lot of people. If everyone knows how fun games feel like, would it not be obvious for them to make it more often.

However now a days games, which are truly fun and appeal to a very huge audience are very rare and far between. The perception of fun is also very divided. Some games come across as fun to some gamers whereas the same appear boring to others.

Fun cannot be defined, as it is more of a feeling. It needs to be felt by the one who needs to experience it. So if it is a feeling how can it be generalized? It can't be. Any feeling is unique to the person and the feelings of each and every one of us are different. For every situation we are programmed to react differently. And this programming had been done as a result of our past experiences.

The feeling of fun is unique to every person and if it cannot be generalized is there no way to make something that is fun for everyone. There is a way. Make a game, which is fun to play for you. Make something that you would want to play for a long time. If you have managed to develop such a game and you love it, chances are that there would be others as well who are similar to you in their likings, who would find it interesting. Then all that you would have to do is to find them and tell them about your game. That's the only way.

This is where so many of us fail. We listen to judgments of others who tell us that we need to figure out what is fun for the market. Figuring it out would be next to impossible. It is very difficult for me to figure out if my friend would also want to see the movie that I want to see. If its so difficult to guess what my friend would like, imagine how difficult would it be to guess what million of other people whom we don't even know would like. But we know what we would like and we know how to make that, so let's make it.

No matter how great a movie, there would always be someone who doesn't like it. No matter how great a song, there would be someone who doesn't quiet enjoy it. Any art form is of second order, which means that we can only ensure that it is produced but we can't ensure that others would like it. We can put in all the effort to make a movie but we cannot make sure that people would like it. But the chances of us liking that movie, which we have produced keeping ourselves and our satisfaction in mind is much greater. That should be our approach with making games as well.

Make games that you would want to play, make games that you would love to play and then try to find as many people who are similar to you (or hope and pray that your game finds them). That’s your best shot at being successful at making games, which are truly fun to a lot of people.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Street Fighter & the Action genre: Are we alienating newer players

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 04:33:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

A few years ago I tried my hand at Street Fighter 4 on my Xbox 360. I just loved the game. The art style, the fighting mechanics, the ultra combos, they were just awesome when they came together on the screen. So many different fighters and so many different styles, the game offered a lot to the seasoned campaigner and I just loved it for that. And gamers flocked to it on their ps3 and PCs.

Mastering the combos and knowing when to use them in which situation were the two main factors in determining who became a champion and who didn’t. My friends and me spent hours upon hours on our ego trips as to determine that who was the best of the lot. I guess that’s what makes these fighting games so special. The adrenaline rush that goes through your veins when you execute a difficult combo and see your opponent fly across the screen. The absolute pleasure of looking at your friend grimacing in that virtual pain. I guess there is no greater rush in gaming that letting your friends to know, who is the boss, specially in an arena.

As I said, I just loved the game. But I am a seasoned gamer, someone used to the world of sticks and buttons & the game is right up my ally someone who has generally been playing fighting games for a long time. Having said so, the complexity of the combos is sometimes too much for someone who is new to this genre to pick it up and start having fun. This may only be my personal experience but I hardly know anyone who loved and played SF4 a lot but who has not played SF3 or SF2 a lot. These games demand that there is a level of awareness and comfort with the controls and combos.

It gets even tougher when that new player tries to get online. He just gets his ass handed down to him multiple times by seasoned fighters and his morale beaten down to dust. Very few can muster up the courage to keep going on in the face of complete annihilation to learn the ropes. With games these days trying to increase their reach and trying to increase the total gameplay time in a bid to increase incremental revenue, this is bad news for fighting games.

This was not quite the experience when I tried the same game, Street Fighter 4 on my iphone. I have to admit that it was much easier for a new player to pick up the game on an iphone and have fun with it. The number of hours I enjoyed playing the game on Bluetooth in my office with people who don’t actually call themselves gamers is a testimonial to that fact. What really changes was the ease with which the game allowed the players to perform special moves. Yes there was the traditional control system but the iphone version of the game also introduced a special button, a different control selection, just tapping which (and using the directional virtual pad) the player would be able to perform the special moves. And the not so gamer guys loved it. I loved it too.

It got me thinking that how come these guys who have never played games before, let alone SF, love this game so much. The answer was simple. They got the thrill of executing those combos that made these games so special, easily. They didn’t have to remember complex controls, spend hours trying to master them. They just needed to press a button and input a direction, and lo and behold, spectacle on the screen. Just by pressing a button, they would feel all mighty and powerful. Just by pushing a button, they could do what they have so fondly watched others to do but knew was too tough for them to try. Can something similar be done for similar games on consoles? How hard would it be to lower the entry barrier for newer players so that they can equally enjoy the game.

I agree that enjoyment for these games is not just a factor of on screen action and moves. I know that you must be thinking that removing complexity of controls would take away the challenge factor in these games. But it doesn’t have to be so. For example, in a game like SF, a new control mode can be implemented selecting which the player would be able to use those easier controls. But that would come with a caveat. If the player would use such controls, all the attacks done by him would have 50% of damage as compared to done normally. This would give them a reason to try to master the original controls so as to have the increased damage, hence bringing the balance in the game in favor of those who are willing to put in the long hours of practice.

The same can be implemented in online play as well. The system should be able to track down the experience level of the player depending on the number of games played in previous games of the same franchise. Depending on their experience level, they would be paired with players with the same experience (assuming that same experience level somehow equates to the same skill) which would allow for more balanced competition. This would shield the newer players from highly experienced players. The players can obviously change this setting and opt to play at a higher level if they find the competition too easy.

I know that this is not the optimal solution. But if we are to breakout to become an entertainment medium which is to be enjoyed by the masses and not only the classes, we need to figure out a way to make sure that the games that we develop are more forgiving to newer players. This doesn’t mean reducing the difficulty level of the games, as it would go on to piss off the hardcore audience. What it requires is that the newer players are eased into the gameplay experience and is not subjected to a host of information that may be too much to handle too soon. Developing games that give challenge to the hardcore players as well as take care of the newer ones is just one step in the right direction.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited
EZ6RMTDPEUMJ

Why Ninja Gaiden 3 doesn’t feel Ninja enough & the case of making SUPER HARD games

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 05:49:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Ninja Gaiden is one of my favorite all time franchises. I just love the game and am quite in awe with Ryu Hayabusa. The fact that a normal human being with no great super powers can accomplish so much just by way of training and discipline is something that appeals to me a lot. It makes me believe that if Ryu can do it, so can we mortal humans. Add to that, the game features the most awe inspiring moments of action where you just wish to put the controller aside and enjoy the marvel of Ryu’s blade cutting and slicing through enemies. It’s almost as good as watching a movie.

Well I said, almost as good as watching a movie, but that doesn’t mean I want to sit back and watch a movie. I guess, I would be the first ones to stand in the line when a movie based on the Ninja Gaiden franchise comes in the future, but I don’t want the same experience when I just bought a $60 game. I don’t want to be the spectator; I want to be Ryu himself. I want to face his struggles, want to fall and then want to rise again to find myself on the top of the pile of sliced and diced bodies of my enemies. That is what Ninja Gaiden has been always about. It has always been a game where the player is faced with insurmountable odds, where the player feels that death is just round the corner, where defense is almost as important to survival as attack while I am struggling to master the different weapons.

That’s why I don’t like Ninja Gaiden 3. It just doesn’t make me feel like Ryu enough. It doesn’t provide me with those insurmountable challenges, it doesn’t make me fear about the death that may be lurking around the corner. Yes it does offer me different weapons but it doesn’t give me incentives to master them. After all why would I do so or even try if my Dragon Sword is enough for the game. And that’s the reason why I don’t feel Ninja enough. A ninja’s life is supposed to be tough. A ninja is supposed to fight for his life & for the morals he stands for. A hero is only as great as his adversary, and Ninja Gaiden 3 doesn’t give me any.

There is a reason why some games are made super hard. There is a reason why just completing Ninja Gaiden itself is considered as an accomplishment. There is a reason why Devil May Cry has the Dante Must Die Mode, why Dark Souls is so damn tough. It’s because their devoted players revel in the sense of accomplishment that comes with beating the game. It’s because they know that the game designer have just given them a challenge: “Hey dude, lets see if you can top this”. And then when they do, its like saying back, “Here’s your gauntlet, let me see what you have got next.” These games are meant to be tough because they are not just games; they are a test of skill, endurance and perseverance. They are more than games; they are like badge of honor for those gamers who complete them (remember accomplishments). But Ninja Gaiden 3 doesn’t feel like a walk in hell, it feels more like kindergarten as compared to the previous games. Its like the designers of the game have thought we are not good enough to be tested. And we don’t like that.

Fun has many sources; some enjoy watching comic movies whereas some enjoy brutal action. Imagine making the movie 300 as Smurfs and Dumb & Dumber as Avengers. I bet the audience would be pissed off. That’s because the audience is different. By diluting the difficulty of Ninja Gaiden 3, I believe Tecmo Koi has tried to make the game accessible to all, primarily the not so hardcore players but in doing so instead manages to piss off the loyal fan base. The ones, who want to feel like Ryu Hayabusa, want to experience his constant defeats, his struggles and learn through all that to finally stand on top of the pile of his enemies. That is when it feels like a true ninja, that is what feels like Ryu Hayabusa. Hopefully Tecmo Koi would get its act together in the next game and let us enjoy being us, the wielder of the mighty Dragon Swaord. Until then, it doesn’t feel Ninja enough.

If you like the blog, please share it on your facebook, twitter & google+ accounts by clicking the link below. Cheers :)

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

What can Xbox One, PS4 and Wii U do right to survive and thrive?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:15:00 +0000

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Sony and Microsoft has announced their next generation consoles: PS4 and Xbox One. However, amongst all the hype and drama, there is no hiding the fact that the sale of games of the current generation of consoles is dwindling. Reports from NPD and the like suggest year on year decrease in sale of both software and hardware for xbox 360 and ps3. There have been suggestions that game console have enjoyed their time in the spotlight and now its time to give way to their heir: smartphone gaming. However I don’t really believe in this argument as have clearly underlined my reasons in my previous blog:http://thevideogame2013.blogspot.in/2013/06/xbox-one-and-ps4-is-console-gaming-on.html.

Some of the industry stalwarts have come forward in defense of the consoles like Sony worldwide development president Shuhei Yoshida. According to him, its not the decreasing popularity of consoles as such but particularly of the current generation (xbox 360 and ps3) which is running in its 7^th year that has affected sales. After all, no previous generation of consoles has lasted so long.

The above mentioned reasoning does make sense however no one is to denounce the fact that the upcoming consoles from Microsoft and Sony face tougher competition for the gamers mindshare as compared to previous times. In light of these circumstances, what value should both Xbox One and PS4 provide to the gamer to leave their mark.

Connect the gamer: With the advent of Facebook and Zynga, gamers have grown accustomed to be connected to each other. Social games have tried to make games more social in nature, sharing and exchanging gifts. The introduction of social dynamics have improved the mechanics of gameplay by making multiplayer gameplay an important part of today’s console games. The next generation of consoles would not only have to continue connecting the gamers but offer much more. It would not only require gamers to log into their systems and play multiplayer games but should provide solutions which would keep them connected to their gamers and friends, even when the system is off. This is where cloud computing and high-end servers have a role to play. If the next generation can find ways to always keep the gamers connected to each other through the help of other devices, it would add a lot of value.

Bring down the physical boundaries: Much of the criticism that xbox 360 and ps3 has faced as compared to smartphones is that it restricts gameplay to only the bedroom/living room of the gamer and kind of restricts the physical boundary. Xbox one and PS4 need to do better and allow the gamer to interact with their games even when they are not in front of their consoles. Microsoft’s Smartglass and Sony’s PS Vita may help the behemoths in some manner but incentives need to be given to the developers to incorporate gameplay requirements or mechanics that avail these facilities. This brings me to my next point.

Scope to innovate: Xbox 360 and PS3 reached their zenith of what most can be done by the 4^th year of their introduction. The limitation of the systems in terms of how much can the developers do on them limited the innovations being brought on them. However, Xbox One and PS4 both have the x86 architecture and top end hardware stuffed in them like 8GB of RAM which would give more scope to the developers to innovate and bring new stuff pretty late in the cycle. This is considerably important as most of the time it takes 2-3 years for the developers to uncover the true potential of the system.

Indies, Indies, Indies: Sony has had a headstart over Microsoft when it comes to nurturing relationships with the Indie community. Microsoft needs to look deeper in the list of best games of the last few years to understand why. Games like Limbo, Little Big Planet, Dungeon Defenders and Minecraft has not only been critically acclaimed but also been commercially very successful. This not only brings

something different to your system at a very lower-affordable price point but also gives a little variety to the gamer. Indie games are generally where the innovation is and it would do the giants a great service to include them, specially considering the innovative space of the smartphone gaming.

Become better at what you are good: Console games are characterized by awesome graphics and immersive detailed gameplay. The next generation would have to make the graphics more awesome, the gameplay more immersive, the worlds more detailed and the choices presented to the gamer more varied if they are to reach their before known heights.

The focus should be on providing an experience so surreal that it cannot be achieved on something else, hence creating a very different value space for the consumer. Become better at what you are good at while addressing your weaknesses is a sure shot way to strengthen your position.

The Xbox One and PS4 are coming, and lets hope that they bring along with them something new, something that has never been experienced before. This would not only do them a world of good but also the industry and the fans.

To know more about the latest in games, reviews and news, please visit http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited

Xbox One and PS4: Is Console gaming on its last legs?

noreply@blogger.com (Siddharth) — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:49:00 +0000

With things changing so fast on the video gaming scene, all that I seem to read is how console gaming is dying and the next generation of consoles are truly the last of its kind. The proponents of this idea seem to believe that with the advent of gaming on the move in the form of smartphones, the fastest growing segment of the industry, soon the console industry would not find enough audience for it to be a financially viable investment anymore.

With all the pessimism surrounding the console industry, it seems hard to believe that console gaming would be dying. This got me thinking as to what are the signs which show that this may not be altogether true.

Lets for starters look at the recently announced microsoft's xbox one and sony's PS4. Both of these consoles have been subject to both awe and criticism. The great way to judge how a product is going to be received in the future is to look at the reception of its idea in the present. Here i am able to see some pointers which reveal that the future of the console industry is not so bleak. The launch events of both Xbox One and PS4 has been watched both online and in live attendance by record number of people. This is definitely shows a great level of interest in the next generation consoles. The preorder numbers from Amazon for Xbox one and PS4 are in record numbers, much greater than when the previous generation was launched. These facts go on to prove two things:

1. The number of people who have shown interest in the next generation consoles is definitely bigger than the ones who were interested in xbox 360 and ps3.
2. The above fact can only be achieved if the total number of people playing console gaming has increased, otherwise how would the increased number of people be accounted for.

These numbers alone are evident that the interest surrounding the launch of xbox one and ps4 is great. Let us now look at why the detractors are envisioning a future without console gaming. They are of the view that the gaming habits of gamers are changing at a pace which is so fast that the console giants would not be able to catch up to it. This seems farther from the truth. The next generation consoles take into account the fact that the gamers is always on the move and hence have focussed a lot on cloud computing. This is evident from the fact that Microsoft has increased the number of servers focussed on cloud computing for Xbox One to 3,00,000 from a meagre 15,000 for xbox 360. Thats a phenomenal increase in number, one that Microsoft would not be betting on if it was not sure of the role of cloud computing in games of the future. It is also true that gaming on consoles is an altogether a different beast as compared to gaming on smartphones. There has not been a single smartphone game which has been able to give as grand an experience as some of the console game behemoths like Call of Duty or GTA. The experience on consoles is so much bigger and better as compared to a 5 inch screen. We dont stop going to the multiplexes just because we have Netflix or DTH at home. We dont stop going to fancy restaurants and bars just because we can home deliver our food and beverages. People always crave for bigger and better experiences. Thats in our innate nature.

Many believe that smartphone gaming is eating into the pie of console gaming and thats why it doesn't have a bright future. I beg to differ. I believe that the whole pie is getting bigger. Smartphone gaming has done a great job of introducing more and more people to gaming by lowering the various barriers to entry. And as these new found gamers become more entrenched in games, they would start looking for better experiences and hence graviate to console gaming. I as an avid gamers on consoles as well as my ipod and galaxy s3 truly believe and hope that thats the case.

For more on latest news, game reviews and discussion on the happenings of the video game industry please visit

http://www.facebook.com/videogamesunlimited