Is Mobile Gaming Thriving Or Struggling? Depends Whom You Ask
A day after Glu Mobile said it would shed staff and cut CEO Greg Ballard’s salary to prepare itself for what it called the “increasing economic headwinds” facing the sector, its larger rivals Electronic Arts and Gameloft, told Reuters that the market is doing fine, thank you very much. A Gameloft (EPA: GFT) spokeswoman said “it’s all going well,” while EA’s mobile business head Barry Cottle went further: “Mobile games are actually thriving right now,” he said, dismissing the idea that declining handset sales had hurt the market. He added, however, that while it was “too early” to tell what sort of impact the weakening economy would have on the company, so far, they had grown in all regions, including Europe where handset sales have dipped.
So what accounts for this disconnect? Senior Forrester Analyst Thomas Husson says the larger companies have economies of scales that their smaller rival doesn’t. They can, for instance, more easily take the same title and port it to different platforms. Glu (NSDQ: GLUU), on the other hand, said that it was taken off guard by the success of the iPhone, admitting that it should have put more resources toward the new platform. They also have wider distribution partnerships in place, with Gameloft having particularly good relations with operators and handset markers. Plus for EA, mobile games is still a small part of its business, with mobile sales making up around 5 percent of overall revenues. For Glu, mobile is it.
More after the jump
Husson adds, just because the sector may see a slow down, and some companies may be hurt in the decline, doesn’t mean all companies won’t do well, or that some parts of the mobile gaming sector won’t thrive. In November, at its gaming forum in Rome, Nokia (NYSE: NOK) head of gaming Jaakko Kaidesoja said it was likely that the overall market was not going to grow in 2009,but he excluded the company’s gaming platform N-Gage (of course), the iPhone, and emerging market from this dire fate. Still, despite EA’s rosy view of the market, it’s obviously not always smooth sailing, even within the company. Cottle told Reuters that he was “bullish” on N-Gage, yet just a few weeks ago at Nokia’s gaming forum, his colleague Peter Parmenter, told the audience that he still considered N-Gage a “soft launch,” grousing that “it’s easier to get an audience with the Pope than it is to get a game through certification at Nokia.”
Meanwhile, RCR Wireless has a story on Trism, a cautionary tale for all the big mobile game publishers. Trism is an iPhone game built by Steve Demeter, a 29-year-old developer who was able to quit his day job at a bank after he raked in $250,000 from the game after two month’s on Apple’s App Store selling at $5 a copy. Demeter spent four months—nights and weekends—coding the game, in which players line up triangles of the same color depending on how the iPhone is rotated. As RCR Wireless notes, Demeter’s story manages to show at once both how popular mobile games can be, while also pointing out why the industry as a whole has struggled so far. With Trism, there are “no exorbitant subscription price points. No expensive licenses from production studios, and no prohibitive porting fees to address dozens of phones. No fancy 3-D graphics, which can be costly to produce, and no ridiculous rev-share payouts for the privilege of being merchandised on the consumer-hostile storefront that is the carrier deck.” So yes, mobile gaming is thriving for some, but it’s clear with new distribution platforms opening up, how and which games are made is going to have to change too.
Related Stories
Posted In: Entertainment, Gaming, Companies, Electronic Arts , EAMobile, Nokia

Comments (4)
Dec 4, 2008 12:39 PM
Steve D. raked in ‘250,000 million’?
Dec 4, 2008 10:18 PM
Glu is hosed because they’re a “pure play” company that has to license every title it publishes. Big competitors such as EA, in addition to generating their own properties, pay for a license to a property across all platforms, so the cost to the mobile division is far less. Glu’s business plan dooms the company, due to the actual amount of sales any mobile title gets; it’s just too expensive to license content for mobile only. Plus in missing iPhone it shows they’re weak at dealing with changes and new technology; and being an unprofitable company, they won’t have enough resources to move to support the new platforms (like EA did when they were surprised by the Wii).
Once a year or so someone will catch lightning in a bottle like Steve Demeter did on the iPhone. I hope he can repeat it, otherwise he’ll be back at the bank in a few months.
Dec 5, 2008 7:18 PM
I think the industry is in trouble. Did you see the press release about the executives from Tapatap that are headed to DC to get bailout funding for the mobile entertainment industry?
Here it is.
http://www.tapatap.com/tapatap-userweb2/public/corp/press.htm#12.04.08
Dec 6, 2008 2:19 PM
Glu’s impending bankruptcy is directly and solely attributable to the leadership of its CEO. Glu has grossly overpaid for tired, unsuccessful movie licenses and other product licenses. Calculated from its financial statements (cost of goods plus “impairments”) it appears that Glu’s EFFECTIVE royalty rates are in the 40% - 50% range for licenses, and no company can succeed with this level of expense. Glu did not have to pay these rates for these licenses, but has been consistently unable to walk away from bad deals. This was compounded by their complete failure to operate cost effectively and be non-GAAP profitable and cash flow positive, which is how public companies are valued. Finally, Glu’s CEO simply has been unable to create any intrinsic value in Glu (by developing successful original games and titles) so they’ve increasingly relied on poor licenses and misfit acquisitions such as Superscape for their growth and success. Even as a “pure play” company Glu could have been highly successful if they had been operated efficiently and cost effectively and had not grossly overpaid for their licenses. But without a product-focused or operationally focused CEO, Glu relied on being a marketing-driven company, and as with other marketing-driving software companies (Acclaim) this focus was doomed to fail.