Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sugar-Coated Drug-Dealing Game Approved For iPhone

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the just-try-calling-your-suitcase-a-bomb-at-the-airport dept.

Handhelds 73

Pocket Gamer writes "Of course, Apple wouldn't allow such a salacious games as Dope Wars on the hallowed corridors of the App Store. What Catamount's done is sugarcoat its game (quite literally) and turned it into Prohibition 3: Candy Wars — a reskinned version of the exact same game."

cancel ×

73 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Drat it all! (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551053)

I used to love playing this game on my Handspring/Palm clone. Why didn't I think about this? The stupid hype it's going to get will guarantee it'll be on the top ten for at least a few days....

Re:Drat it all! (2, Interesting)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551143)

I remember playing this on my TI-83 during high school.

Dope Wars (4, Funny)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551295)

I remember playing this in real life during high school... (Disclaimer: I attended HS in the mid-80s in So. Cali.)

=Smidge=

Re:Dope Wars (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26551935)

It's days like this I wish I could go back in time and suck my own cock. It's either that, or start a company called Google. Of course by now we all know what happened.

Re:Dope Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26556699)

You had a rib removed and paused to post on /.?

Re:Drat it all! (1)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555919)

Yes I did the same. Of course, without the drug references nobody would have found it the least bit interesting.

Re:Drat it all! (2, Interesting)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26556311)

On Windows, I always liked Drug Lord [geekhideout.com] more. It's essentially the same game as Dope Wars, but with a better interface. I had a lot of fun/frustration trying to get on the high score board, but then I realized that it was sort of easy to cheat and assumed everybody else was since there was no way to get near even the bottom of the board without doing so. Still, it's a great game that I still occassionally play.

Re:Drat it all! (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551755)

I knew that this sounded familiar! I used to play this on my old Visor! Good times.

Poppers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26551105)

Poppers (alkyl nitrites) are an inhalant used by iPhone users to relax and expand the sphincter muscle, which allows easier entry of their partners penis.

Re:Poppers (2, Insightful)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551241)

Cocaine is known for making its users go on and on about the same thing, thinking they're being terribly clever when they're really just boring everyone else rigid. It is therefore well-loved by Slashdot AC trolls.

Re:Poppers (-1, Troll)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551273)

I don't need cocaine you insensitive clod! Linux rules! 2009 will be Teh Year of Teh Linux! Die, M$!

Re:Poppers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26551747)

Indeed seems like you've had plenty of it today as it is

Re:Poppers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553325)

Cocaine's a hellova drug /Rick James-BITCH!

Re:Poppers (2, Funny)

rampant mac (561036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553389)

"Cocaine is known for making its users go on and on about the same thing..."

Linux on the desktop?

LOL, +1e12 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26551307)

Not that iPhone users need this substance. Their poor anuses are already distended to the point that they look like wadded up piles of bologna.

I thought it would be Mario (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551183)

out getting more 'shrooms.

Somehow... (3, Insightful)

samriel (1456543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551207)

I think that inhaling any of the ingredients in the screenshot from TFA would be bad for you. Especially whole candy.

Kidding aside, I don't think Apple had much choice. All it takes is five or ten idiots who can't see through their guise, and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store.

In conclusion, blame the shallow, gullible masses.

Re:Somehow... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26551375)

Why does a KID have an iPhone? The only phone my kid has is a preprogrammed one with 7 set phone numbers they can call.

Re:Somehow... (2, Insightful)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552141)

Why does a KID have an iPhone? The only phone my kid has is a preprogrammed one with 7 set phone numbers they can call.

Possibility 1. They don't have an iPhone, they have an iPod Touch. (queue the "why does a KID have an iPod Touch?" question)

Possibility 2. Maybe they saved their money and bought it themselves (as a "major purchase") Either with them paying for it through their job, or with the understanding that the parents pick up X amount of the monthly fee, and they have to pay the difference out of chores/allowance/income?

I could certainly see kids (and I'll be generous and group anyone under ~16 in that category) wanting an iPhone, and with that generation's increased use of SMS/IM, social networking sites, etc I see the iPhone/ipod Touch as a great tool for them (don't need a dedicated computer most of the time, can "time share" the family computer to load music or new apps). The only barrier to entry for them is the initial cost, and any reoccurring charges (for the iPhone), and of course keeping your "friends" from stealing it.

Of course the real problem here is what the definition of "KID" is.

Re:Somehow... (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553477)

If a kid is responsible enough to hold a job that pays well enough to afford an iPhone, then I'll just assume that they are responsible enough to handle omgdrugz!

And if it's a spoiled kid who was handed a pacifier^H^H^H^H^H^H^H iPhone, then their parents have already screwed them up far more than a game ever will.

Re:Somehow... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555303)

I agree. I was exposed to this game in high school. It was a pretty fun game. Can't say it really inspired me to do drugs, or not do drugs for that matter. Having no other expenses, I could have afforded an iPhone at the time, had they existed.

Re:Somehow... (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26562423)

Unless the kid is Pablo Escobar [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Somehow... (3, Funny)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552623)

Yeah, well, some kids have to deal drugs for a living, you insensitive clod!

Re:Somehow... (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551867)

I dont think thats fair. Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store. There are lots of solutions here except for censorship. Blocking and censoring is the dumb way out.

Re:Somehow... (3, Funny)

samriel (1456543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551953)

Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store.

There's the catch.
If Apple were to make a stand, those same gullible people would cry foul, and before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut', and there goes a good portion of conservative buyers.
On the other hand, if Apple put in an adults-only part of the store, we could skip people crying foul and jump straight to the devil-smut.

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Re:Somehow... (1)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553387)

"before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut'"

I think that would just help them sell more iPhones...

Re:Somehow... (1)

ogmaheme (1449843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565577)

"before long, the iPhone is 'full of devil-music and Christ-defying smut'" the iphone IS full of devil music and Christ-defying smut and that's why they do sell more iphones

Re:Somehow... (1)

scientus (1357317) | more than 5 years ago | (#26559861)

the is why googles model (android) is so good. the conservatives can buy only from the store while anybody else can get their apps from anywhere. no whining from either side

Re:Somehow... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26560695)

the is why googles model (android) is so good. the conservatives can buy only from the store while anybody else can get their apps from anywhere. no whining from either side

Considering they already whine when something is available, period, I think they'd still whine in this case. Unless you expect the masses to not know about installing apps from outside the store, in which case the iPhone will be just the same. They can, after all, be jailbroken fairly easily (on Windows it takes a few clicks of the mouse, and the ability to hit both the power and home buttons, but the program walks you through it, on Mac it's similar, but you have to change your USB driver if it's running leopard). And there are millions of tutorials out there to walk you through the exact procedure too.

Re:Somehow... (1)

scientus (1357317) | more than 5 years ago | (#26560809)

it is differnt because apple actively attacks jailbreakers while google will suppor the os even if unoffcial apps are installed. In the car world apple's type of tactics were deemed illegal.

and yes some fundamentalists will find out, but IMHO it makes them not care nearly as much if these things have to be sought out.

Re:Somehow... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552373)

I dont think thats fair. Apple coule make a stand or put in an adults-only section of the store.

Why would it even need to be in an "adults-only" section of the Apple store? It's a *game*. It's not real. Anyone who fails to realise this isn't real should be put away for the good of the community.

Re:Somehow... (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553287)

And thus lands us into the "Why are video games corrupting today's youth" Debate.

Re:Somehow... (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552401)

... and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store...

Wait, what?

Re:Somehow... (3, Funny)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553011)

The type-o here is correct.
I HATE "kid-safe" apps and games, they drive me nuts!

Re:Somehow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26555709)

Seriously. These damn "reply" buttons should definitely be labeled less kid-safe:
  1. Preview -> Goddamn Preview
  2. Quote Parent -> Quote the Motherfucking Parent
  3. Options -> Exercise my right to abort.
  4. Cancel - > Hell, I give up.

Re:Somehow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553429)

I think that inhaling any of the ingredients in the screenshot from TFA would be bad for you. Especially whole candy.

Kidding aside, I don't think Apple had much choice. All it takes is five or ten idiots who can't see through their guise, and all of a sudden people are e-mailing them about keeping kid-safe apps off of the App Store.

In conclusion, blame the shallow, gullible masses.

Why blame an external group who has no direct influence on Apple's actions. Blame the culprit: Apple, this is just wrong.

Re:Somehow... (2, Insightful)

brkello (642429) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553735)

Why not blame Apple for the stupid things they do? If they did this on the XBOX 360 the Slashdot crowd would be all over that. If they did this on a PC, people would be crying about the "think of the children" mentality in this country. But because it is Apple, it gets a free pass. I don't understand the worship of companies. Yeah, there are ones that are less evil than others, but they all want as much of your money as possible and they all are capable of making bad decisions. If you are going to have morals or an opinion, try applying it equally to any company rather than allowing yourself to be blinded by zealotry.

TI-86 (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551287)

I played the hell out of that game on my TI-86 back in the day.

Re:TI-86 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26551837)

My bloody teacher almost failed me because when they were checking our TIs for coded-in formulas during a calculus exam I refused to delete, among others, Crack Wars (unofficial remake or something).

The explanation that it was simple a game about drug dealing did not sit well with him, either.

Humorless git.

Yet they let that stupid mobsters game go (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551385)

I get hit with ads for it from time to time and I think it just jumped to the top of the App store.

So if we're going to worry about a drug dealer simulator game making it onto the iPhone can we worry more about the one that allows you to put hits out on your friends and uses real social networks (cheapening them in the process as well)...

One of the first Apple ][ games was similar... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551431)

"Lemonade [codenautics.com] " was an economic simulation of selling drugged (sugar) water to people.

It came on cassette tape.

Sugar Coated Drug Dealing Game ? (1, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551651)

Are you sure that is what the white powder is?

Re: !literally tag (1)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26551729)

Yeah, they didn't literally sugarcoat it. The submitter felt it necessary to hint that they are using wordplay, for those who might not otherwise catch it.

Re: !literally tag (3, Funny)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552057)

So is figuratively the new old literally?

"His head literally exploded."
"I bet, he must have been really mad."
"No, his head exploded. You can pack a surprising amount of C4 in someone's mouth."
"Why'd you say literally then? You meant his head figuratively exploded."
"There's never enough C4..."

Re: !literally tag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552563)

Erm, yes they did. The common, metaphorical sense of "sugarcoat" is making something bad seem nicer. Just because you're not actually pouring sugar over your fucking iPhone doesn't make this use of sugarcoat (giving your game a candy theme) less literal.

Re: !literally tag (4, Informative)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553379)

Incorrect.
To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar.
The alternative, to figuratively sugarcoat (i.e. the figure of speech) is to make appear more pleasant or acceptable.

Re: !literally tag (2, Interesting)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553737)

To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar

I hate it when people say "literally" for things that are actually far from literal, but in this case, the submitter deserves some leeway. Not only did they figuratively sugarcoat it by making a drug-dealing game a candy-dealing game, but they transformed drugs into candy. Which you could do by literally sugar coating drugs and making them sweet.

It's still not literally sugarcoating, because there were no actual drugs and no actual candy, but it was quite clever wordplay, so I would say the usage is valid for the purpose of the joke.

Re: !literally tag (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26557455)

Well, I think the use of "literally" is redundant at best, and probably ruins the joke (subtlety and all that).

Re: !literally tag (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26557509)

They did pretty much literally coat their in-game drugs with in-game sugar, so it's in-game literal in this case :)

Re: !literally tag (1)

chishm (1315979) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555369)

This is one place where "ironically" could've been used correctly.

lame pedantry (2, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555505)

Yes, they did also do the figurative meaning: they changed their game from being about selling drugs to being about selling something else in order to figuratively "sugarcoat" the subject.

But they did so by skinning the game with sugary graphics, which seems pretty "literally" sugar coating to me, in that rather than merely figuratively sugarcoating their game with some arbitrarily less offensive graphics, the new graphics are, literally, images of sugar. That's not the figure of speech "sugarcoat", but the literal "a coating of sugar".

To quote the grandparent poster, "just because you're not actually pouring sugar over your fuckign iPhone doesn't make this use of sugarcoat (giving your gtame a candy theme) less literal". Perhaps you're going to argue next that a painting of a haystack doesn't "literally" depict haystacks, but only depicts them "figuratively", because it's not actually made out of hay?

Re:lame pedantry (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26557483)

In that case, if you want to apply the literal meaning, you would say the in-game drugs were sugar coated. The word play to begin with was witty, until it was ruined by the "literally" comment. I'd put it on par with throwing in "(look at the funny pun I made)", when in fact it isn't even a pun but a double entendre.

Re: !literally tag (1)

Phydaux (1135819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26574447)

Incorrect.
To literally sugarcoat means to coat with sugar.
The alternative, to figuratively sugarcoat (i.e. the figure of speech) is to make appear more pleasant or acceptable.

Not really, there are 2 definitions of literally: actually, and figuratively.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally [merriam-webster.com]
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/literally [wiktionary.org]

Just another auto-antonym.

Re: !literally tag (1)

Will M Smith (1460119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26578017)

unfortunately government is a necessary evil

Chocolate Underground? (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552045)

Anyone else think of Chocolate Underground [animenewsnetwork.com] when they read this review?

They aren't trying to hide it. (1)

orenbum (887554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552669)

They're not exactly trying to hide id. I just checked on my ipod touch and in the Info it says "based on Drugwars/DopeWars".

There's a word missing from the summary. (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552987)

"What Catamount's done is sugarcoat its game (quite literally) and turned it into Prohibition 3: Candy Wars â" a badly-reskinned version of the exact same game."

Fixed that for you. Seriously, the screenshot in the article is hideous.

Scandalous! (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553041)

How DARE Apple quash the creative freedom these developers were exhibiting by ripping off and repackaging an old freeware game!

Re:Scandalous! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26555117)

As the smartphone platform with the most marketshare, and the only platform that can claim virtually 100% security, Apple has to make an unpopular decision or two to preserve the platform's integrity.

Of course it's all about the packaging (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553075)

"No you just winged him, now he's a Unitarian."

just slang words (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553093)

the article [pocketgamer.co.uk] says

The premise now revolves around the abolition of candy in 2040 to combat the obesity epidemic sweeping across the world.

but from the screenshot [pocketgamer.co.uk] (same link) it seems these are just slang for drugs.

  • Sour Tarts = acid?
  • Sugar Sticks = Ecstacy
  • Chocolate = ?
  • Raw Sugar = cocain?
  • Lollipops = ?
  • Brownies = Amphetamine [noslang.com] - though I'd have gone with the obvious magic brownies
  • Jelly Beans = Crack Cocaine [noslang.com]
  • Rock Candy = Crack

what would be sweet of course is if all these weren't common slang terms, but only become so because of the iPhone game!

Ok, maybe not the first. (1)

SolusSD (680489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554231)

let me be the first to say: "mmm... sugar-coated drugs".

What we have here is a failure to communicate (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554361)

Do the article author and the slashdot editor not actually get it? The problem wasn't the game play, it was the theme involved. "Sugar coating" it exactly solves the problem. So why does anyone think they've reached some massive cleverness by sneaking their drug game through the censors?

It's like that idiot lady that snuck "gun powder" (components) through airport security showing how terrible they are. (I'm not claiming any magic profiling ability in the TSA here.) But if you don't blow up an airplane they didn't fail. If they can determine that you aren't a threat, you being on a plane with a stick of dynamite rammed up your backside isn't an issue.

Re:What we have here is a failure to communicate (1)

spinlight (1152137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26556737)

Now trying to explain that reasoning to the TSA agent with said stick of dynamite in one's posterior would be quite a feat. Quite a feat, indeed.

VP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26556493)

Copyright infringement, sue those MFKRS
VP [thepremiumproperties.com]

Taipan (1)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26557439)

I remember playing this game on my apple ][e when it was called Taipan.

Re:Taipan (2, Interesting)

fullmetal55 (698310) | more than 5 years ago | (#26562703)

i was going to say, Wasn't Taipan first? and wasn't Drug wars and Dopewars based on Taipan? only good thing about my old Palm IIIe was playing Taipan :)

iphonedopewars.com - shameless plug (1)

jashmenn2 (887694) | more than 5 years ago | (#26575789)

Hey guys, if you want to play a real version of this game, I've created a web-app here: http://iphonedopewars.com/ [iphonedopewars.com] It's a web app because I knew that APPL would never approve a native app, but hopefully it should be fun just the same.

Remember "Root Beer Tapper" (1)

DVARP (1235116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26658457)

Reminds me of the reskinned arcade video game "Tapper." They took out the Budweiser logos, renamed it "Root Beer Tapper," and made it into a fun game I wouldn't have any problem letting my elementary school-age children play. In fact, I might dig up my copy of MAME and let 'em play it!

any1 remember that mac game "happy weed"? (1)

iPhoneAppDemo (1467577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26699935)

bcause i'm waiting for a iphone version, I'm sure they won't mind that on the app store! -------- see apps b4 you buy - http://www.iphoneappdemo.com/ [iphoneappdemo.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?