Friday, March 21, 2008

Mobile Game Pricing

If you compare software prices to the cost of developing console, PC, and mobile games, something seems to be out of whack.

World of Warcraft costs about $50 million to develop and market, Call of Duty 4 – probably $20 million total, Gears of War $10 million to develop and a few more in marketing. The prices of these games range from $30 - $50 (barring subscription fees). By contrast many mobile games cost $50 - $250K to develop. So how can the mobile game industry expect people to pay $10-$20 a pop when as a percentage of development the value is nowhere near a console or PC experience? Much of the blame can be directed at the high margin requirements the networks demand for “on-deck” purchases.

Some would argue that people have no idea about the ratio of game cost to development cost but I would argue that many people (especially gamers) do have a sense of value delivered in relation to development effort and expense. For whatever reason, the bottom line is that consumers have showed little interest in subsidizing the high costs of running networks by paying relatively high prices for mobile games.

The current generation of mobile game should cost no more than $5 each in fact some should be $1 per game. Will this make a lot of money for developers and publishers? Depends on the game, but as the word of mouth, social example, and momentum spreads this pricing could expand the entire market by a factor of 10. ”A buck a game man what are you crazy?” Maybe – but if I have to choose between a 160 square pixel version of Barn Stormer for $10, which will be lost forever at the next cell phone purchase or an AC/DC Back in Black MP3 album which will be burned/backed up and owned forever – I’m going to choose the music – and I believe games and music do compete for money. People only have a certain amount of dough for entertainment.

I’m no Apple fan boy but indeed, if there is anyone who understands the economics behind this thinking its Steve Jobs and Apple. Though the iPhone is not a great gaming platform because of the lack of hard buttons (which could be overcome with a Bluetooth gaming controller), if iTunes can offer a choice of quality games at $1 - $5 a pop – it may become the largest single cell phone platform for video games based simply on the software pricing model.  Apple can’t patent appropriate pricing so the door is wide open for others. Please hurry up so I can start buying 2 games a month.

Friday, February 15, 2008

SLI on Skulltrail – how?

That’s what I wanted to know – how’d you get SLI to work on the 5444 chipset. I asked the folks at Intel. I got shrugged shoulders and apologetic smiles. Not being coy, the people I was talking to just didn’t know, but did, in true (and almost always reliable) Intel fashion, promise to ask around and find out. I figured it was magic, a little trickery maybe, but if it was, it wasn’t easy.

It’s well known Intel doesn’t have an SLI license, but the Nvidia SLI control panel on the computer was operational in the Display Settings dialog box, and this is on Windows Ultimate 32bit. So, a few days later I said, braggingly to some of my pals at Nvidia, I have a Skulltrail with an unlicensed SLI operation. It works great.

The boss of that group looked at me and said, it’s legal. Huh? says I expressing my cool and calm composure. But you guys didn’t license SLI to Intel.

The Skulltrail motherboard uses Intel’s workstation “Stoakley” chipset designed for 2P CPU operation, which is now the x5444.

That’s right Jon, my pal said, in a patient voice. But don’t you remember IDF? To enable SLI support, Intel is purchasing Nvidia nForce 100 SLI MCPs from us.

Oh, I had forgotten – gee, IDF, that was so, so September, I’ve been around the world since then, I’m having trouble remembering the drive down here.

Well, he went on, the nForce 100 MCP converts a single x16 PCI Express Gen 1 bus into dual x16 PCI Express Gen 1 buses, and that’s how SLI is being supported on Skulltrail, as the diagram below shows.

Nvidia actually assisted Intel in the bringing-up and testing of the Skulltrail motherboard which were demonstrated at the Intel Developers Forum in San Francisco. IN SEPTEMBER.

Not only that, my pal said (rapidly reassessing his choice of friends), you even wrote about it in TechWatch. I thanked him for the coffee and slumped away. And here I thought I had an exclusive. I had been scooped by myself.

The moral of this story, aside from the obvious — we’re all taking in so much information we don’t even know what we know — is this: there have been years of subtle fighting between Intel and Nvidia and years of co-opetition, and in the end, both companies will get the job done — whatever it takes.

Sunday, February 03, 2008

A Theory About PC Gaming

A simple proposition: most modern PC gaming requires deeper thought and higher analytical skills than console gaming, and therefore is better for the human brain. 

Pretty obviously, this is a theory of mine made without scientific research but I’m willing to wager there is a neuroscientist out there who would agree with me. I look to two major components to back up this theory: game play complexity and system complexity.

Game play complexity

The most obvious difference between PC Gaming and Console Gaming is the number of control combinations that are possible in PC gaming — essentially every key on a keyboard in many PC games can be "bound" to specific game actions. Console controllers are much more limited.

The artificial intelligence of NPCs (non player characters) is another component which can make a PC game more complex. PCs are upgraded more than consoles and committed gamers tend to upgrade their systems more often. As a result, the processing power of a PC on average has been much higher than game consoles, which accomodates more complex AI. The result is more challenging game play.

Graphical complexity also adds to the human processing requirement and the need for more thought. As mentioned earlier, gamers tend to have newer PCs with advanced features. While the most recent HD console generation allows for 1920 x 1080 resolution; gaming PCs meet that and raise the ante in terms of the number of pixels that can be displayed onscreen, coupled with memory for the storage of objects, and textures, and the processing power to place them. Because of this factor, game designers have more latitude to create finer detailed visual cues and clues — pushing the human brain to think more when experiencing them.

Resource management and a number of other factors could also be used as examples but this depends on the specific type of game being played.

Software and system complexity

PC gaming, with its higher use of user generated content requires the player to be familiar with the file structure of the software being used. How do I install the mod? Where to I put the map files? How do I make a mod or map? These mods can create system and software conflicts which the user must research and solve. Which file do I delete to make it work again? Etc.

Software tweaking is another factor which increases the complexity in PC gaming. Even first person shooters, dismissed by some as "brainless twitch games" push the user to think about how to improve their experience. A plethora of configuration factors in many PC games allow the user to change their config files so that the field of view (FOV) is different, RAM usage more efficient, etc. — even more so in multiplayer modes where users tweak their config files to stabilize their server ping, data rates, frames per second, and other factors.

Hardware customization is another important element which comes into play. PC gamers often install their own components; attempt to mitigate system heat in a number of ways, and "tweak" a number of other settings in their systems, all of which requires them to become more knowledgeable about the workings of a computer and what to do when something goes wrong.

Conclusion

Though playing video games is mainly done for fun, and the benefit of a console is system stability and a common user experience — it is precisely these factors that limit the thought required to play the games and run the system. Add the higher complexity of the game play experience and wider creative latitude for user generated content, and people may want to think twice about where to spend their gaming dollars for themselves or their children.