What is a killer app?
This is a topic I've been pondering over for a while, and even now, I'm not sure I've reached a concrete answer. There are several different reasons for this. The first being that games are no longer just "games". They're "hardcore games" and "casual games". That alone has complicated matters to the extent that I just cannot stop second-guessing any theory I come up with.
Couple that with the fact that gaming platforms are not just gaming consoles any more -- they're media devices -- and you have a hell of a debate on your hands. However, for the sake of getting this off my chest, I'm going to try and put my thoughts down on digital paper, just to see if I can't come up with some sort of a solution to the question.
Take Brain Age, for example. Is it the DS’s killer app? Sales records would certainly indicate that it is. It increased the DS’s market share and opened up sections of the market that had been unavailable to game developers prior to its release, too.
Now, saying, “increased the DS’s market share” is, of course, an understatement. Brain Age sales are nothing short of mind-boggling. Even to this day, the game continues to perform admirably and show up in top ten sales charts – especially in Japan.
So, Brain Age is the DS’s killer app because it sells systems and opens up new opportunities for developers. It increases the platform’s mind-share as well as market-share. It is a game that would be impossible to bring over to any other system (save for the Wii, I suppose) in the gaming market. It undeniably proves the value of the DS, especially in the minds of casual gamers, and that is clearly the next big market in gaming.
This brings me to the question: Is a killer app a game that sells systems? Or is it a game that pushes the hardware of a platform to its limits? Usually, a game that does the latter tends to sell well anyway, but that is beside the point. What I’m questioning is the philosophy, not the end result.
In the case of the DS, couldn’t Nintendogs be considered a killer app as well? While Nintendogs hasn’t sold as well as Brain Age has, it was responsible for showing developers and gamers alike what the DS was capable of. Without Nintendogs, I doubt the DS would have remained as competitive as it has. It demonstrates the system’s capabilities remarkably, both graphically and in the way of controls.
But then again, there are several games that do this. Metroid Prime: Hunters is an excellent example. Not only did the game feature excellent single player and multiplayer modes along with tight controls and good graphics, it also inspired a ton of developers to start developing first-person shooters for the DS; something that anyone would have thought impossible a while ago. Also, early on in the DS Phat’s days, Nintendo used to give away a demo of Metroid Prime: Hunters with the system. Clearly, that contributed to the system’s reputation as well.
Metroid uses every single feature of the DS to great extents. The touchscreen, the microphone, the dual screens, the wi-fi … all of it. Pokémon Diamond & Pearl aren’t nearly as grand, and yet; they sold a lot more units than Metroid did. However, in this case, I suppose it is the nature of the games that was responsible for that. Metroid isn’t half as well known as Pokémon is. But again, which one is the killer app?
The same goes for a system like the Wii. Which is the killer app? Wii Sports or Twilight Princess? One could argue that Wii Sports is the casual gamer’s killer app while Twilight Princess is the core gamer’s killer app. But it isn’t as if the core gamer wouldn’t have bought Wii Sports even if it didn’t come out of the box. While Wii Sports showed people what the remote was capable of, Twilight Princess showed us that the Wii is definitely capable of being home to much more than just casual games.
But, wait! Maybe it isn’t Zelda or Wii Sports at all. What if it’s the Virtual Console? What if downloadable retro games (and new, original games in the not-too-distant future) are the Wii’s killer app? Gives you something to think about, eh?
In the case of the Xbox 360, it isn’t nearly as complicated. Gears of War was the system’s first killer app. Halo 3 will be the next. Xbox Live Arcade is popular, sure. But it isn’t anywhere near as popular as the Virtual Console is (or will be, for that matter). However, the 360 isn’t exactly a very affordable system in the eyes of a casual gamer or non-gamer, so that limits its “broader” appeal to a fair extent.
Going by that theory, the PS3 will never appeal to the casual market. All of the system’s killer apps will be in the form of games meant strictly for the core gamer, simply because they are the ones who are going to buy the system. However … the PS3 could very well introduce a new factor in the killer app debate. Could Blu-ray be the PS3’s killer app in the future? Why shouldn’t it be?
Space needs are going to rise, costs are going to come down ... Blu-ray is going to take over from HD-DVD sometime soon; there’s no doubt about it. And no, the porn industry can only influence the battle for a limited period of time. Who even pays for porn any more?
After all that, I think we can define a killer app (in the gaming industry) as something that makes a particular platform desirable and assures people of its value. There are multiple killer apps for a system. Each one appeals to a different kind of gamer. But then again, as the 360 and PS2 have proven, there can even be multiple killer apps within the same genre.
Which brings me back to the same point again. Are those games really killer apps? Is Final Fantasy XII a killer app? It’s an awesome game; it pushes the PS2’s hardware magnificently. It features a storyline that is nothing short of epic. However, the PS2 was doing just fine without it. There aren’t many people who bought the PS2 just for Final Fantasy XII, are there? The same goes for God of War. It isn’t like Halo 3¸ where Halo fans who owned an Xbox are going to be buying the 360 for the sequel.
So, once again, "killer app" goes undefined and we're back where we started. You could continue to support the argument that there are multiple killer apps, but that makes the term lose its meaning, doesn’t it?
So, what are your thoughts? Can a single game ever hope to stand out above all the rest and be the only contender in its league or is beauty always in the eyes of the beholder?
[Metroid Prime: Hunters image borrowed from IGN.]
2 comments:
Been trying to answer this for a day now, I'd write a few paragraphs down and then hump the delete key in frustration as I couldn't quite articulate myself as I wanted.
I've pulled this down to three critera. However, we should separate Killer App and Killer Feature/Hardware. I guess the same logic will apply to both but it confuses your core question.
1. TOP SCORE
Obviously one but it's got to be good, no excellent!
2. EXCLUSIVE OR UNIQUE
If you want it to shift consoles it needs to be tied in somehow. contracts, controller, superior hardware or just getting the jump with a new direction.
3. PENETRATION
You need to appeal to a high percentage of a core audience or a good percentage of a wider audience.
So meeting those three criteria I'd say gives you a killer app and depending on that mixture gives you a scale of its Killer Appiness. :)
So say something like Pokemon or Halo has a huge percentage of its core audience on board, as long as the product remains exclusive and isn't a bag of shite it does its job for that core audience. Outside of the core though it's less likely to be a killer app. I'd go so far as to say the kiddy Nintendo image has limited its AAA games from achieving that Killer App status on the GC.
Brain Age or Wii Sports goes for the wider audience appeal offering a little for everyone, a fairly rounded product and a totally unique experience.
This is where Nintendo has seen its way back into the market as Sony totally corners the former Killer App to the Core Audience when the PS1 and PS2 gained huge developer support. Sony just had so much software there, hitting so many core markets with good and exclusive titles it had a combo killer app strategy which worked really well.
I hope that makes some sense after all these attempts.
Argh, I had the exact same problem replying to your reply. I think I've finally managed to come up with something I put down here. I hope it makes sense.
First off, agreed; a game must be an exclusive for it to be a killer app. It must also have been received warmly overall by the gaming press.
Now, for the penetration issue. Again, agreed. It needs to appeal either to the core gamer or the casual gamer and do exceedingly well in either of those two departments. But, does it also need to push hardware limits? Does it need to introduce something new to the genre it is of? Or can a cookie-cutter game be a killer app as well?
Pokémon Diamond & Pearl are the perfect example. Both games stick to the tried-and-true Pokémon formula without changing a thing. Well, they add online support, which, I suppose counts for something, but the core gameplay is exactly the same. Nothing has changed since the GBA days.
My question is this. Do those games count as killer apps just because they sold so well or do we need to measure them on another basis? I mean, it's Pokémon. It's bound to do well, isn't it? The same goes for certain other games.
Any Final Fantasy will do well, any Halo game will do well, any Command & Conquer or Civ or Blizzard game will do well. But does that make them killer apps?
In my opinion, the definition of "killer app" is changing. In this day and age, where there are so many similar games, it seems killer apps would be those that try to do things a little differently and succeed. They lay the groundwork for future titles to do the same and thus, contribute in a productive way to the industry.
Gears of War isn't a killer app going by my theory, then. It does everything past games used to do, only better. But that would mean the 360 hasn't seen its killer app yet, wouldn't it?
Post a Comment