Humble Bundle

I think Humble Bundle is a really neat initiative. They provide interesting Digital Games (Origin, Steam) and eBooks (Mobi, PDF, ePUB) for a really cheap price and the providers donate proceeds to charity.

Lets look at the current bundle. You get the following games for any price that you want. I believe the minimum is one dollar. And if you pay more than the current average price ($4.80), which will be $4.81, you get Battlefield 3 and Sims 3 too.

There are a few reasons why this is interesting:

1. Price: Even though the games are old, its a really great price to acquire them. $5 is the same price most folks pay for a take out breakfast and this instead affords hours of entertainment.

2. Genres: The games cover a lot of genres: FPS, TPS, Racing, Action etc. Hence, it not only interests a huge gaming base but also introduces casual gamers to new games which could possibly translate into future revenues.

3.  Digital Content: I am a proponent of digital games. Mainly because I have lost, scratched and misplaced tons of CD's and CD Keys over the years. This helps keep all my games in one place and makes it easy to re-install games when I format my computer (which typically happens once a year). It also satisfies "instant" appetites as the time taken to start playing the game is only limited to the speed of your internet connection and not UPS / USPS / FedEx delivery timelines.

4. Public Perception: As seen below, it clearly states that Origin is donating its share to charity. So it gives them a lot of good publicity. Since over a million people have bought this bundle, it translates to a lot of goodwill towards EA, much more than traditional marketing methods. One thought, is EA paying Steam (by Valve) for the downloads? Because no where does it mention that Steam is donating to charity too.

5.  Statistics: In 2 days, EA has raised over $5.5m dollars. It seems that a lot of folks are using this for marketing as we can see by the twitter handles and website link. But that's good for EA because they have to pay high dollar amounts to do so. Lastly, I would like to point out that its super interesting that the average price is $4.80 right now. What that shows is:

•  A lot of folks must have paid $1 (or a similarly low amount) to counter all the high amounts paid.
• The rest of the folks must be paying around $10 - $15 for the bundle else the minimum would have centered around $2.

So it shows that the bulk of the folks care about price, the rest pay a nominal amount even though that is higher than the average. It also serves to show that people would possibly pay $10 or $15 as round number, even though one is paying digitally and it is easily possible to pay $4.81 to unlock all the content. Lastly, it would be an interesting marketing exercise to see why EA put "The Sims 3" as a bonus and not a more popular game. They could have simply switched around Dead Space 3 with Sims or even have added Crysis 3.

Lets hope we get similarly great Humble Bundles in the future!

Amazon, Google, Apple vs. Vita, Ouya, Shield

This is a long post, hence I've structured it out. I highly advise reading it in its entirety, but the TL;DR is at the end in the "The Future" section.

EDIT: It seems that post caused a bit of confusion. I am NOT comparing the PC, XBox One, PS4 or Wii. I am looking and comparing other handhelds and consoles being introduced this year. I am also comparing the possibility of Amazon, Google & Apple introducing consoles and how they would fare against these new additional consoles.

Background:
The first digital game I ever played was on a handheld. It had only one game - Tetris. From there I moved to consoles, discovering the world of Contra, Mario and Bomberman. And then I discovered gaming on the PC. From playing the old Apogee games, moving on to DOS games such as Prince of Persia 1 and Paratrooper, to discovering how cool it was to play Prince of Persia 2 in color! And then came the Win 3.1 games, Chips Challenge and Rodents Revenge which paved the way for Bio-Menace, Jazz Jackrabbit, Raptor, Wolf-3D and Doom on Win '95! And after that I finally discovered the modern era of gaming - from Roadrash to NFS 3, from Dink Smallwood to Age of Empires.

The point of my gaming background above? I love games and have played them on every device through the years - Portable, Console and PC. And it seems that now we have arrived at a juncture in gaming hardware, wherein we are restarting the hardware cycle all over again.

Initially, when computer hardware was expensive, handhelds with cartridges were the way to go. As hardware improved, so did the graphics and that ushered in the era of Atari and Nintendo. Soon after, the PC came up to par with the hardware necessities requisite for gaming and also gave a new experience to gamers introducing genres like RTS and MMORPG.

Current Scenario:
Today, we have extremely powerful PC hardware, but it costs a pretty penny to keep upgrading it every 2-3 years (Believe me, I know since I've build my own rig for the past ~15 years). A console helps in that regard since this years Xbox One and PS4 refresh comes after 7-8 years.

What seems to happening this year is that everyone is hoping for a piece of the console refresh pie and we have a slew of new hardware products coming out this year. So I wanted to quickly compare and contrast all of them.

Microsoft: Nothing really. Unless you count Windows Phone / Win 8 tablets as an extension.

Sony: Sony is hoping for the PS4 to revitalize (pun intended) the Vita, especially since you can continue gaming on the handheld from the same point where you left it on the console. It sounds like a pretty interesting concept, especially for hardcore gamers who want to finish that level before being banished by parents to the bedroom or someone who wants to finish during their public commutes.
Check out a clip of this functionality, shown during the PS4 console reveal demo:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/29/sony-vita-remote-play-for-all-ps4-games

Nintendo: I am not too familiar with Nintendo, but whatever I have experienced on the Wii, seems to be focused on Tween gamers. Especially since most major AAA titles are not on the Wii which are what avid hardcore gamers prefer. And the USP of the Wii, which was motion based accessories, has since been eclipsed by the Kinect. So I believe the 3DS and Wii focus on another market segment completely.

Ouya: This was the rage when it was announced last year, but it seems that the hype has fizzled out. Yes, its an interesting idea to have a cheap console. But why would someone really want to play mobile quality games on a TV when you have your phone for that? Plus it seems most owners aren't really spending on the games. I give props to the product for an innovative idea but it needs some major titles to come on board asap, especially ones that would be paid or at least have a good freemium model.
https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/07/25/most-ouya-owners-aren-39-t-buying-games.aspx

Nvidia Shield: I was looking forward to reviews of this product for quite some time. I've heard of portable console stations and those looked interesting but were more for people who travel a lot by car. It seems the Shield has a lot going for it. Great graphics, excellent sound, great titles (same as PC), an excellent media device and decent portability. The negatives would be that you can't really play on it as a true portable, you need to put it in your lap since it's too heavy. Plus it falls into a very weird juncture. Its not a tablet, its not a portable gaming device, its not a laptop but it seems to do a bit of everything pretty well.

So it would be very interesting to see how hardcore gamers adopt this device.

See the links below for a full Engadget review and a short interview by Gamasutra:

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/31/nvidia-shield-review/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/196412/Who__and_what__is_Nvidias_Shield_for.php

Amazon, Apple and Google: It seems that all these technology heavyweights are rumored to be developing their own consoles, similar to how they are all developing their own media boxes. Since they have the Fire, iPad and Android tablets respectively, it seems that they want to basically create a port to a console, similar to how the iPad adapted iPhone apps. It's an interesting idea and the Me-too concept may make some money since these products will come with a big brand name behind them. However, as I discuss in the next section, there are different verticals that gaming falls into and these address only one of them - Casual.
Some links with details about these rumored consoles:
https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/08/08/amazon-developing-android-console-for-release-by-end-of-2013.aspx
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31747_7-57597852-243/why-an-apple-tv-game-console-is-a-no-brainer/
http://techland.time.com/2013/06/28/google-is-reportedly-making-a-games-console-and-smartwatch-why-not-everyone-else-is/

Analysis:
According to me, there are currently 3 verticals to gaming: Kids, Casual and Mainstream.
Kids: Consoles such as a Wii address these needs and games produced by Disney, Microsoft and Nintendo cater well to this audience.
Casual: This is what Mobile gaming is addressing today. Everyone loves to play games. There are some with mass appeal such as Angry Birds but most prefer to play a quick game while traveling or waiting in lines.
Mainstream: This has always been the main source of revenue for the gaming industry. This is where titles such as GTA, Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty fall into.

The Future:
I believe that there are very few games that appeal to mass audiences. And hence, there is specific hardware for each audience.
For Kids, we have the Wii, 3DS and Kinect.
For Casual, we have mobile games.
For Mainstream, we have the PC, Xbox One, PS4, PS Vita and possibly the Shield.

This is my primary concern with the heavyweights coming out with their own consoles. Which market segment are they addressing? Considering the quality of games available, they are addressing the Kids and Casual markets.
Casual will definitely not work since most folks play those games because of the portability and accessibility factor which will not be there for a console sitting at home.
Kids may work to a decent extent, but that would be highly dependent on which publishers have their games on which console. Since the Kids market is dominated by a few major publishers, they actually wield a lot of power since the success of the consoles may depend on which console the publishers choose to publish on.

Summary:
I believe the market will continue as it is, with the major consoles and PC leading the mainstream market and mobile games dominating the casual market. The new consoles will not changes the status quo much. The next big market shakeup will most probably be 3D gaming, as detailed in my earlier post about the Oculus Rift (http://geeksmirage.blogspot.com/2013/08/oculus-rift.html).

Oculus Rift

Over the last year, I've been hearing a lot about the Oculus Rift. I still remember the first time I played a VR (Virtual Reality) Football (Soccer) game where the balls bounced of my body when I was acting like a Goalkeeper. It was like magic and I couldn't believe that I could play a game without touching any kind of hardware.

Fast Forwarding 12 years, Oculus Rift (OR) seems to be the defacto gadget discussed whenever speaking about gaming and VR. I have been waiting for a while for some reviews and I finally found a good review of the dev kit version.

I am currently very wary of 3D technologies as there seems to be no standard and hence all of them seem to have some downfalls, the main one being nausea.

Since OR takes that to another level that was one of my primary concerns and it seems that is a major issue for now. Also, another interesting challenge as quoted about loading screens in the article is "Just imagine how odd it would be if you turned your head in the real world but your vision remained the same as before. In practice, this feels like being stabbed in the brain at the same time as the world spins out from under you." which is something I had never even considered. It just seems impossible to imagine how something can disorient so much. Another good example of things being too real is "Basically, the closest I could get to Alyx before running into her hit box was at around two feet away. But as I stopped as if I had hit her physically, my brain interpreted the signal as, “Oh, if you ran into her, you must be super close—and if you are that close, your perception is wrong. She's not far away, she's just tiny!” So for the rest of the game my mind interpreted every human character as being two-thirds the size of a normal human.". So it seems that the challenges are not only with the 3D technology but also with framerate, syncing, 3D modeling and texture design.

The point to be made here is that when we are in Virtual Reality, the keyword is not Virtual, as we inherently know that what we are seeing is not real. Hence, we can make do with and process the fact that we are fighting zombies, flying alien ships or even listening to a dystopian big brother known as GLaDOS. They keyword is Reality, as we are now in a world where even in a game, we expect a human person to be an appropriately sized 3D model with detailed textures. We expect the physics to compare to those on Earth unless we are explicitly told that we are in an anti-gravity chamber and even then it may be a disorienting experience wherein the physics values need to be changed to what the general masses can get used to.

The OR seems to be at the forefront of a new digital technology world, especially with what 3D printing can already achieve. I predict that the OR or a successor will do great things for VR, similarly to what the Microsoft Kinect did for gesture recognition and control.

As an avid gamer, I hope they iron out some of the kinks soon, coz I just cant wait to play a full VR simulated game of Counterstrike, Age of Empires and GTA!

http://kotaku.com/i-played-the-oculus-rift-for-five-hours-straight-987568701