So Android is basically giving up their biggest competitive advantage to iPhone gaming? Android's emulators always seemed to trump iPhones wider selection of native games.
This is almost certainly a result of the launch of Sony's Xperia aka Playstation Android phone. Can't you still just sideload the app?
Maybe Amazon's Android store will allow the emulators back in? Or will Google be able to block this?
"Android is basically giving up their biggest competitive advantage to iPhone gaming? "
Emulation is a niche. Mainstream audiences want touch touch-enabled games, designed for small screens (no tiny fonts) at their native resolution without the hassle of finding illegal ROMs.
And emulators with touch screen controls are an even smaller niche. I play my fair share of classic games, but the iOS/Android emulators never struck me as compelling - Megaman, for example, is just not playable without actual buttons, and I'd happily pay for RPGs (even remakes) that have touch interfaces as opposed to simulated buttons.
I would think that more people would want to play Super Mario on their phones than Angry Birds just based on familiarity. How many billions of people know Mario and how to play it already? Final Fantasy 1/2/3 are selling well on iOS. What is your source for your assertion over what mainstream audiences want?
Angry Birds sold 10 million copies on iOS alone in under a year. I highly doubt the majority of them would rather play a platformer that has been done to death over the last 25 years.
Sure and how many will they sell next year? Mario games, as a whole, have sold more than 210 million units: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario
One single ringtone, Crazy Frog, made its creators a cool half billion back in 2006: http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2010/09/welcome... Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time. Also, price/availability makes a huge difference--how many platforms was Angry Birds sold on and how much did it cost compared to Mario?
Lady Gaga may outsell the Beatles this year, but in 2015 it's almost near certain the Beatles/Elvis/Frank Sinatra and other classics will still be selling. There is always going to be a demand for new product, but the iconic games/bands/movies are still as relevant as before and there will be demand to have these classics ported to the new medium.
Mario games as a whole on the platforms they are intended for may have sold lots but how many people have bought the SNES, Gameboy etc versions?
We're talking about an old game on a device it wasn't meant for, there's no way your average consumer would rather that over a game built for the touch interaction on a device.
I think this is one instance where talking about the "average consumer" is meaningless, since if you define the average to be something like the median 50% of the population, you're still excluding the 50% of the population at the ends of the distribution.
No, you're absolutely correct, more people do want to play Super Mario than Angry Birds, but more people do not want the hassle of getting a ROM, learning what the heck a ROM is, etc. That Nintendo and the other companies haven't dedicated a small team to native Android / iPhone development to make some small games for the phones surprises me.
It seems to me the other companies are coming out with native ports (sega, atari, capcom, square, etc.).
OTOH how can it be surprising that Nintendo is not cutting the legs off it's own platforms? 25+ years I can't recall their first party titles on anything but Nintendo consoles.
The games are the unique value proposition for their consoles (which they sell for a profit, unlike other companies). Publishing them elsewhere would quite probably be a net negative for Nintendo.
I agree, but I just thought it was always a strong strategic move for Android because all the people who wanted to play Donkey Kong or Zelda would at least have the option to do so, whereas for iOS you have to jailbreak your device.
It seems like the timing is too coincidental/coordinated with the Sony Xperia Play phone launching. Why would you buy games from the PSN store when you can buy an emulator for $8 and then get the games for free? It's in Google's interest to keep Sony happy, more than it is a few developers. Google also leaves a loophole because you can still side-load the apps.
That's a fair argument regarding PSX4Droid, but I doubt that's the case with this group of emulators. Sony doesn't have any relationship with the SNES or the Genesis, so with the exception of maybe a few ported games, it's doubtful they'll be selling that IP on their own store. In fact, the controller on the Xperia Play would make those emulators a pretty compelling reason to buy it.
I'd wager this was related to either ROM distribution or violating the license on the emulator code.
I doubt this is about "keeping Sony happy" specifically.
It might be that Sony is the entity that raised the infringements to their attention, if the reports of GPL infringement and other "non-commercial use" licensing issues are correct.
Why would Sony be defending GPLed code? Possibly following "the enemy of my enemy can at least be used to inconvenience my enemy" rule. Though there is no evidence that a high profile company is behind the take-down at all - it could well be that one or more of the open source projects caught wind of their code being used in breach of their chosen license and complained to Google and that the timing of Xperia's launch is a coincidence.
You're arguing against a strawman, most of the comments here have been positive and the article even says: But is a loss really a loss? The important aspect of this 99-cent promotion is the value of the increased traffic and awareness. It has new products to promote, Cloud Drive and Cloud Player...
I bought the album just to get the 20GB Cloud drive space free for a year. Definitely a great deal and I'm sure the product awareness from the promotion was cheaper and more effective than traditional ads.
I know of a few companies where it's hard to find someone below the level of director, dozens of AVP/VP/SVPs, and at least 10 C-level execs. I think it's a way of attracting people without having to pay them more. This seems like a societal effect of over-credentialization.
There are also enterprise sales organizations where all members of the team are given director or better titles because that has a real impact on whether or not they can meet with the CTO/CIO-level potential buyers.
Perfect example of how non-costly signals become worthless. Somehow it reminds me of how everyone is reluctant to accept check #1001 from a new account, so now banks just ask where you'd like the numbers to start.
There's a reason they say sell in May. A lot of people think in June LinkedIn is going to take a beating. But who knows really, a lot of the time it is just a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think anyone said ideas don't matter, it's just an idea isn't something unique you can leverage. Two people can have the same idea and when all things are equal, it's the execution that really matters. Look at Myspace vs Facebook, Zune vs iPod, Yahoo vs Google.
