Mobile games are focused on exploiting addiction on people vulnerable to them. There are no interesting gameplay process, no nice graphics, no art.

Traditional games vs mobile is the same as journalism vs clickbait. Mobile games are in the same league as downloaders, browser toolbars, doorway pages.

I would say that the top games have good gameplay process, nice graphics and good art.

I've played some where I've thought - "oh, this game would be so much better if it wasn't stuck in a IAP addiction mode".

I never get very far in these games due to the artificial IAP barriers.

I've pretty much given up on mobile gaming. People just aren't willing to pay money for a quality game. These days if I play a game on my phone or tablet it's usually a board game (one of the few genres that's mostly free from exploitative IAPs) or an emulator.

You're thinking of free to play games, or games with IAP. While they may be less successful, there are plenty of paid mobile games that are great.

> Mobile games are focused on exploiting addiction on people vulnerable to them.

True.

> There are no interesting gameplay process.

Maybe.

> [...], no nice graphics, no art.

False.

> Mobile industrie are not the same than game for PC, they are really focused more on money than the game itself

I'd argue that this focus isn't necessarily to just make money, but to make money that mobile users simply refuse to pay up front. Most people don't think twice about paying anywhere from $10-$60 for a game on PC or consoles. Yet many will leave complain about an app or game because it costs $5.

Take the Nintendo 3DS as an example. Games vary in cost, but $20-$40 is most common for many games in the Nintendo Shop and on cartridge. There are very, very few games that are in that price range for iOS, simply because no-one will buy them. Instead, developers focus on IAPs as a way to offset that.

Pricing on mobile is caught between a rock and a hard place. IAPs have a terrible reputation because they're used (sometimes overly) frequently as a way to generate revenue from games that were released for free (or at very low cost). The alternative is to have users pay a fair, up-front price. That's not going to happen as long as people complain that apps cost $5 (which is usually how much that same person just paid for fast food or coffee that they didn't even finish).

>they are for dumb users (sorry I don't have other word for, and it's not even casual)

That is a sweeping generalization, and wrong. Why is it dumb if someone might be quite happy spending their own money playing Candy Crush on their iPhone? That's no different than someone wanting to use micro transactions in games like Overwatch, Call of Duty, or even a monthly subscription to WoW. Just because you think it's dumb, doesn't mean it is. If they enjoy playing the game, what does it matter?

While I disagree with the word dumb and find "ignorant" more suitable, your Candy Crush comparison is bad.

Jonathan Blow nailed it in this presentation: https://youtu.be/AxFzf6yIfcc?t=2436

yes, it's better :) thanks

Because they didn't realize that the mechanism of the game make there pay for playing like it's a coin machine.

You can't compare micro transactions in game that you already pay and candy crush, you didn't pay for a full game, if people want spend their money they are free to do so, I'm also free to call them dumb for that reason. I personnaly play CS:GO sometimes and I have sell all my skins, cases, etc., and thus make the game free for me more that 15$ earned, then I can only say that others people are a little dumb to pay for that.

It's a terrible business, though. Making an indie game you'll be lucky to draw a salary. Much better to get paid market development rates and make a game on the side, or go work for one of those "evil" monetization focused game companies.

Case in point: Toronto, Ontario has a lot of indie game devs. Ontario has great government grants for interactive digital media, through the OMDC.

All that said, the typical indie game studio here is marginal, surviving year-to-year off government grants.

If you actually manage to make a profit and draw a salary ($50k), you're a big success story.

> Mobile industrie are not the same than game for PC, they are really focused more on money than the game itself

That's a sweeping generalisation. Mobile games are not "focused more on money than the game itself". There are plenty of examples of PC games which are straight up cash cows, just as there are plenty of examples of mobile games which are deeply rewarding and fun to play. To make statements like that is insulting to both sides.

But I think he has a point - the mobile game industry, in general, is more focused on money than good games.

Sweeping generalization? Yes. Holds true for the most commonly installed games - I think so?

But is that because mobile game developers made a conscious effort to just focus on making money from IAPs, or because the economy on mobile is so badly skewed?

A $10 game on Xbox, PlayStation, or even Steam is considered fairly low-cost. On iOS or Android? Very few people are going to buy that.

Then isn't there a market for mobile games targeted at the more traditional gamer? Example being hearthstone for mobile.

I think there's a market for the traditional gamer. I think mobile games geared towards them get drowned out in the sea of ... optimized filth.

I think AR headsets like Hololens will offer an opportunity to appeal to more traditional gamers first before, as you so humorously put it, "optimized filth" becomes the mainstay. This is due to, what I think, is a positive correlation between people that are early adopters and people that are gamers.

That's not the way to refute an argument. Generalizations are convenient because exceptions always exist and outliers are no way to disprove a trend.

>plenty of examples of mobile games which are deeply rewarding and fun to play

Really?

Sure. Reigns, Hopiko, Alto's Adventure, You must build a boat, Monument Valley, Hearthstone(arguable), Clash Royale(again arguable), Vainglory, Crashlands. That's what I've got installed on my phone, I'm sure there are plenty more.

So you listed few and can only assume others. Looks like an opinion to me. Comparing to average 500 games application per day it does not look like too plentiful.

> Mobile industrie are not the same than game for PC, they are really focused more on money than the game itself, they are for dumb users

The PC AAA developers a very, very quickly catching up in dumbing down games; DA:Inquisition comes to mind.

DA:Inquisition was dumbed down? I'm about 20 hours in and find it much more complicated than DA:O and DA2 (or I'm just misremembering those games)