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!

The Mixed Outlook for iPhone Gaming

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the a-lot-of-talk-little-content dept.

Games 99

With everyone talking about Apple's big announcement, it's unsurprising that commentators are discussing the possibilities of gaming on the iPhone. The DS and the PSP are both on N'Gai Croal's list of who is afraid of the iPhone, and with good reason. Touchscreen gaming on a high-resolution screen? Sounds like fun. TIME's lengthy run-down on the iPhone even mentions the possibilities of games on the small screen. Just the same, it's not all roses: Kotaku talks about the developer unfriendly nature of the platform, and how that could throw up barriers to the first game on the handheld.

cancel ×

99 comments

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

Why even worry about it? (4, Insightful)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17581862)

You can't USE the damn thing for anything beyond what Steve envisions.

There will be no free games for the iPhone, and the pay ones will all cost way more than they are worth.

All of the potential of OSX and Cocoa will be locked up in the Apple ivory tower. GG, Steve. GG.

Re:Why even worry about it? (2, Informative)

ceeam (39911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582104)

C'mon - the question of whether or not is totally political as everyone can clearly see. If there's enough backlash (and there is enough) Jobs may change his mind. It's not that hardware is not capable of running 3rd party software.

And even if not - the thing will be hacked in two days, devkits leaked and Apple will have to allow it de facto. See the story of Boot Camp.

Re:Why even worry about it? (2, Insightful)

anothy (83176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582842)

and you know this how?

a few quotes from an editorialized article recounting an informal interview do not a definitive statement on the subject make. Jobs has said that the software distribution model won't look like it does today; can we give them at least a little time - since we're still 5-6 months before launch! - to describe what that model is before we announce the death of third party applications on the iPhone?

Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17583690)

Now of COURSE Apple is going to brutally clamp down on anything the iPhone (or whatever it's going to be called) can do: their ENTIRE history has been one of brutal exercise of monopolistic policies toward all things Apple.

First they killed the Apple-compatible market. Then they killed non-Apple vendor sales. Then they killed non-Apple retail sales.

They also killed off non-Apple software, attacked non-Apple music sales, and are even attempting to lock in PC users of iPod/iTunes.

Apple is, was, and always has been a brutal monopoly. They are a relic of the days of "proprietary computing"... but due to their fanatic user base, they have never seen any reason to change.

If Apple doesn't have 100% control over something, they don't want anything to do with it. WHY, WHY, WHY does anyone think Apple will ever act otherwise?

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

iendedi (687301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17584054)

Apple is, was, and always has been a brutal monopoly. They are a relic of the days of "proprietary computing"... but due to their fanatic user base, they have never seen any reason to change.
So I suppose that is why they based OS X on BSD, give their developer tools away for free and innovate heavily in open standards?

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17584200)

Yes. That is also the reason Macs ship with python, perl and ruby installed. Because Apple is so hostile to open source and people hacking anything on their computers.

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17585728)

So I suppose that is why they based OS X on BSD
OS X is based on NeXT, the OS kernel based on XNU. XNU is made primarily up of a Mach kernel and a BSD subsystem...

I wouldn't really say OS X is based on FreeBSD.

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

binford2k (142561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586224)

So I suppose that is why they based OS X on BSD
OS X is based on NeXT, the OS kernel based on XNU. XNU is made primarily up of a Mach kernel and a BSD subsystem...
 
I wouldn't really say OS X is based on FreeBSD.
He didn't. He said BSD. Do you not read what you quote?

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587190)

He didn't. He said BSD. Do you not read what you quote?
Yes, but my form of dyslexia sometimes makes a fool of me :P

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587630)

So I suppose that is why they based OS X on BSD
OS X is based on NeXT, the OS kernel based on XNU. XNU is made primarily up of a Mach kernel and a BSD subsystem...

I wouldn't really say OS X is based on FreeBSD.
He didn't. He said BSD. Do you not read what you quote?
According to UNIX History [levenez.com] , the first release of NeXTSTEP used 4.3BSD, so it's fair to say it's not based on FreeBSD. However, it should be noted that OS X frequently incorporates code from FreeBSD. This is pretty much the status quo in the family though. BSDs share similar licensing and are Unix, so sharing is a good idea.

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

yandros (38911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17600882)

Also, many of the early core Darwin/MacOSX people were recruited directly from FreeBSD...

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587302)

So I suppose that is why they based OS X on BSD, give their developer tools away for free

Apple is using a bunch of open source libraries, software, and open standards, but so is Microsoft.

Apple deliberately keeps key parts of their platform proprietary, thereby effectively making the entire platform proprietary. And they do that even when equivalent or better open source alternatives are available.

and innovate heavily in open standards?

Like what?

Re:Apple has Slashdot's "Favored Monopoly" status (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17614632)

Apple has always insisted on having a hardware monopoly, except for a brief period in the mid-1990s when they allowed clone-makers to compete with them, before subsequently putting them out of business. Macintosh hardware was, consequently, expensive. You didn't open it up and fool around with it because doing so would void the warranty. In fact the first Mac was specifically designed to be difficult to open--you needed a kit of exotic tools, which you could buy through little ads that began to appear in the back pages of magazines a few months after the Mac came out on the market. These ads always had a certain disreputable air about them, like pitches for lock-picking tools in the backs of lurid detective magazines.

This monopolistic policy can be explained in at least three different ways.

THE CHARITABLE EXPLANATION is that the hardware monopoly policy reflected a drive on Apple's part to provide a seamless, unified blending of hardware, operating system, and software. There is something to this. It is hard enough to make an OS that works well on one specific piece of hardware, designed and tested by engineers who work down the hallway from you, in the same company. Making an OS to work on arbitrary pieces of hardware, cranked out by rabidly entrepeneurial clonemakers on the other side of the International Date Line, is very difficult, and accounts for much of the troubles people have using Windows.

THE FINANCIAL EXPLANATION is that Apple, unlike Microsoft, is and always has been a hardware company. It simply depends on revenue from selling hardware, and cannot exist without it.

THE NOT-SO-CHARITABLE EXPLANATION has to do with Apple's corporate culture, which is rooted in Bay Area Baby Boomdom.

Now, since I'm going to talk for a moment about culture, full disclosure is probably in order, to protect myself against allegations of conflict of interest and ethical turpitude: (1) Geographically I am a Seattleite, of a Saturnine temperament, and inclined to take a sour view of the Dionysian Bay Area, just as they tend to be annoyed and appalled by us. (2) Chronologically I am a post-Baby Boomer. I feel that way, at least, because I never experienced the fun and exciting parts of the whole Boomer scene--just spent a lot of time dutifully chuckling at Boomers' maddeningly pointless anecdotes about just how stoned they got on various occasions, and politely fielding their assertions about how great their music was. But even from this remove it was possible to glean certain patterns, and one that recurred as regularly as an urban legend was the one about how someone would move into a commune populated by sandal-wearing, peace-sign flashing flower children, and eventually discover that, underneath this facade, the guys who ran it were actually control freaks; and that, as living in a commune, where much lip service was paid to ideals of peace, love and harmony, had deprived them of normal, socially approved outlets for their control-freakdom, it tended to come out in other, invariably more sinister, ways.

ah, but what choice do those poor people have? (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587278)

<sarcasm> But what choice do those poor people have? After all, according to Cingular and Apple, Cingular apparently has such a flaky network that if you allow any third party applications on it, the entire network will go down, and Apple's platform is so susceptible to viruses that the only way to secure it is to lock it down.</sarcasm>

Re:ah, but what choice do those poor people have? (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17589478)

I think Steve Jobs should be applauded for doing so much to protect Cingular's network. That's a great thing that he's trying to do. Lord knows their network goes down all the time because of all the third party apps I run on my phone. Every time I fire up Bejeweled, 7000 people are left without service.

Re:Why even worry about it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17595100)

WFt?
Flash games specifically tailored to the iPhone.

Ernest Schutz

Re:Why even worry about it? (1)

macbigot (904292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596648)

All games will install through the iTunes Store. At first, they will all cost $$$; but eventually (version 2.x?), there will be a way to subscribe to game RSS feeds (as podcasts), so that consumers can subscribe to a feed which gains them a new game every week or even ever day (the free game every day thing has sold a lot of hardware into the kid market for years).

There will never be a need to install a program directly on the iPhone; because everything will always sync through iTunes (which someday may have to be renamed).

Gosh! (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17606926)

That sounds like a GREAT situation for someone who wants ssh, VNC, vlc, Colloquy, centericq and cron running on his iPhone that RUNS UNIX.

Re:Why even worry about it? (2, Funny)

marcogretzky (1050948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598718)

well let's just hope that steve allows the REAL killer-app... http://i-squeegee.com/ [i-squeegee.com]

Developer Unfriendly? (3, Interesting)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17581866)

If it already uses widgets, couldn't you just write the games in Javascript? That doesn't sound that developer unfriendly to me. Also, what about web games that use Flash. You're going to be able to play those under Safari already, right? I'm sure many developers will design Flash games specifically tailored to the iPhone.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582024)

Only plays games in Flash/JS. Only $100 dollars less than a PS3. Lame.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

Blankhorizons (1003315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582864)

Can you make a phone call on your PS3?

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583810)

Probably. [skype.com]

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17584838)

No, skype is x86 only. No plans for a PPC version.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#17585680)

It honestly doesn't matter. The point of my original post was missed anyway.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (2, Insightful)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17600622)

Actually no one missed the point. It was just awkward and lame.

No, skype is x86 only. No plans for a PPC version? (1)

Thalidomide Pickpock (1029550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592412)

Re:No, ...x86 only. No plans ...PPC - Um, yr link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17599650)

Your link shows "Skype 2.0 for Mac" is a Universal application. This means it runs on both x86 and PPC.

Re:No, skype is x86 only. No plans for a PPC versi (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17600250)

Yes, yes, I should have said, no Linux PPC version.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17585690)

Can you make a phone call on your PS3?
Plenty of opensource Linux SIP clients out there, that will run on alternative architectures if compiled.

In other words, yes.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (3, Informative)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582060)

> Also, what about web games that use Flash.

There'll be no Flash or Java [nytimes.com] on the first iteration of these phones, although that's probably because involving too many developers would kill the secrecy around this product. The next revs will probably support them.

Another kicker is: no video support in the current camera (although that'll probably change soon). Lots of people use their cameras to record video.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582228)

There'll be no Flash or Java on the first iteration of these phones, although that's probably because involving too many developers would kill the secrecy around this product. The next revs will probably support them.

Well, that pretty much eliminates the whole fucking point of having a browser that doesn't display a subset of HTML. If you're giving me a full web browser, you NEED to give me flash and java. Otherwise large portions of the web that would otherwise be accessible because I can view webpages are now closed to me. Yet another reason why this device is going to fail, I guess.

Another kicker is: no video support in the current camera (although that'll probably change soon). Lots of people use their cameras to record video.

Given Apple's and Apple Fanboys' continual attempts to paint OSX as THE media platform of choice, this is an extremely horrible decision. But then, no flash, no java, no third party support... I guess this thing is ALL horrible decisions.

I have a Motorola V3i that I hacked to support video clips longer than one minute. The quality is pretty poor (actually it's the low resolution that hurts the most) but generally speaking the video tells the story. I can't imagine spending $600 on a phone with a camera and finding out that it doesn't do video. That's like spending $50,000 on a car and finding out it has no reverse gear - it doesn't make it totally worthless, especially if you're say purchasing it to race with, but it is a mind-bending omission.

yay abuse of moderation (-1, Offtopic)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582590)

I wonder if this is my serial downvoter striking again, one of his friends, or just an apple fanboy. You assholes who think that anyone who you don't agree with is trolling are one of the major forces destroying slashdot. I do hope you're proud of yourselves.

Re:yay abuse of moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17583132)

Riiiiight....and your complete inability to express an opinion without coming off sounding like a teenager on meth has nothing to do with why your posts get modded down.

Re:yay abuse of moderation (1)

timster (32400) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586350)

No, but honestly I'd like to know what's been going on with Slashdot over the last month. It's like everyone has just decided to throw poo everywere instead of having a discussion. Did people finally get tired of digg? Can we have another "slashdot is lame now" exodus, please?

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583738)

Seriously, I don't understand why this phone is so lame. Other phones can play MP3s, and support Java and 3D, Flash games and manufacturers release/support free development tools which are pretty good (mostly Java and C++).

Except other phones are locked too (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586320)

manufacturers release/support free development tools which are pretty good (mostly Java and C++)

And network operators lock you out of being able to test your app on your phone and/or the phones of your friends and family. Such is life under the FCC-sponsored mobile phone oligopoly.

Re:Except other phones are locked too (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17588972)

I've never heard of that. Get it flashed with default software then. That's £10 or £20 in the UK.

Re:Except other phones are locked too (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592078)

Get it flashed with default software then. That's £10 or £20 in the UK.

And the shipping from the United States and back is how much?

Re:Except other phones are locked too (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592456)

> And the shipping from the United States and back is how much?

I don't know. Perhaps it's cheaper to get it done in the US though, right?

Subtlety (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592700)

Perhaps it's cheaper to get it done in the US though, right?

Perhaps my subtlety isn't coming through. People don't know that their phones can be unlocked because no place that unlocks phones in the United States advertises so in the traditional media. Besides, IS-95 (commonly "CDMA") phones outnumber GSM phones in the United States, and the GSM carriers (Cingular and T-Mobile) are perceived as not having as much coverage as IS-95 carriers (Sprint and Verizon). This article [thetravelinsider.info] claims that IS-95 phones cannot be unlocked.

Re:Subtlety (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17592908)

I'm not talking about phones being locked to a network. Getting your phone unlocked is pretty straightforward, even in the US. You can unlock a lot of phones yourself, using just a website or an exe - no cables or taking your phone to someone with a laptop/software is required.

What I was talking about was this apparent inability to run your choice of apps on your own phone. If this is down to the network you've got your phone from customising the firmware you've got on your phone then simply unlocking it so you can put another companies sim-card in an make calls on their network isn't enough - you're going to need to replace the firmware on the phone with either the firmware of another network, or with default firmware. (You can upgrade your own firmware via a download and usb cable, for free, using certain phones, such as modern Nokias, by going to the manufacturers website, but their upgrade software respects the network you're using and will not let you replace, say Orange's choice of firmware with the one T-Mobile uses, for example).

Yes (1)

StarKruzr (74642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583112)

Javascript. That sounds incredibly enticing.

Come on.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583568)

Yeah. Just because JS and Flash games are the top ones... Developers trully wish to utilize every aspect of the platform - OS, hardware etc. iPhone as it is for now does not offers that.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586292)

If it already uses widgets, couldn't you just write the games in Javascript?

Can it use unsigned widgets?

Also, what about web games that use Flash.

Developing SWF is cheap now that the Flex tools are out, but doesn't the software to make "resources" (graphics and sound) to add to your SWF still cost $700?

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17587540)

http://www.osflash.org/swfmill [osflash.org]

also see

http://mtasc.org/ [mtasc.org] (a better, faster, open-source Actionscript compiler)

and http://haxe.org/ [haxe.org] (a better, faster, open-source language for writing flash and other things in)

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17589526)

iPhone doesn't support Flash. Yes, this phone is developer unfriendly.

Re:Developer Unfriendly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17603176)

Why do you believe the Apple iPhone web browser does not support Flash? How do you know this phone is developer unfriendly?

Not gonna happen, sorry (3, Insightful)

QueePWNzor (1044224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17581894)

I'd like to see gaming on an iPhone. But, since Jobs's decree of no external software, I doubt it will ever happen. Nintendo has nothing to fear, because it has many game makers on its side, and likewise for the PSP. I know Mac users who complain about no Mac gaming on the computers - so why should the developers foucus on a phone. Besides, what type of game cartrige (or, in PSP's case, microDVD) could it use for software? I'd like it, but I doubt it.

Re:Not gonna happen, sorry (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17584276)

It has internal storage, you'd download them like any other phone game. And the best part is that you'll already know what to expect because you would have played all the games like five years ago on another phone.

Re:Not gonna happen, sorry (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586340)

It has internal storage, you'd download [third party apps] like any other phone game.

And they won't show up on the app menu due to the lack of a Cingular signature.

Re:Not gonna happen, sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17597286)

Quote: I'd like to see gaming on an iPhone. But, since Jobs's decree of no external software, I doubt it will ever happen. Nintendo has nothing to fear, because it has many game makers on its side, and likewise for the PSP. I know Mac users who complain about no Mac gaming on the computers - so why should the developers foucus on a phone. Besides, what type of game cartrige (or, in PSP's case, microDVD)could it use for software? I'd like it, but I doubt it .

PSP uses UMD

You fail

Wait for MacWorld 2008 (3, Insightful)

AsmCoder8088 (745645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17581946)

We all know the true reason for not supporting third party apps, the relatively small capacity (4 & 8 gigabytes), a locked-in provider, and no 3G support: Apple is leaving themselves some room for improvement so that next year's MacWorld, when they announce a hugely-refined version, they can market the device for those who aren't quite satisfied with the current version.

1. Sell limited product to eager customers, while making others upset
2. Wait a year for new rumors to spread about possible new upgrades
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582072)

I agree with everything except the lack of support for third party apps - that might very well be an ongoing issue. I don't know what it will take to get that turned around. Too little sales and Jobs scraps the whole thing, claiming there's no market (in spite of the fact that disallowing third party apps takes it directly OUT of the smartphone market.) Too many sales, and Jobs assumes it doesn't need third party app support.

My theory is that they will offer a limited selection of third party applications through iTunes on a for-sale basis only, and that most of these apps will be the equivalent of a basic cellphone game, only there will not be much of a selection.

One interesting possibility, depending on the completeness of any Java on the phone, which I would hope there would be for the web browser, is that you might be able to load MIDlets in with some kind of compatibility environment. For instance the Motorola Java SDK comes with a phone emulator... which AFAIK is just a wrapper around the MIDlets that provides the functionality they're expecting to see. Perhaps you could use it to play cellphone games in the web browser on the phone...

SJ has apparently said people who want to develop apps for the phone should contact Apple... I would assume that there WILL be a small selection of third-party applications, but they will all be Apple branded and apple-distributed. It's not REALLY a contradiction, since they'll be sold by Apple.

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (3, Insightful)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583232)

It's too bad. "Some games on a cell phone" does not equal "a gaming phone."

It's really a bummer what happened with Nokia's N-Gage. It was a great idea with poor execution. The real difference with that product was the attempt to get top game companies to write/port for their platform. I remembers seeing Ghost Recon and thinking phone gaming had arrived. It was a noble attempt. It's too bad the games were the size of a postage stamp and the phone part made you look like you were talking into a taco.

By comparison, my Windows SmartPhone has a beautiful display and generally good phone functionality. But the games tend to suck because of the lack of support from the pros.

Getting a little bit of software from armatures on the iPhone will not get you exciting games. The only way the iPhone can compete with the DS or PSP is to do what Nintendo and Sony do, make gaming a priority and get high-quality game developers on board.

BTW, what's that thing sportin' under the hood? Can it fill that beautiful display with beautiful 3D graphics? Inquiring minds want to know.

TW

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17599768)

The only way the iPhone can compete with the DS or PSP is to do what Nintendo and Sony do, make gaming a priority and get high-quality game developers on board.

When did Sony make gaming a priority on the PSP?

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17611248)

Relevance. Think relevance. This post was about making the iPhone a gameing platform, with a comparison to another gaming phone thrown in. Though it mentioned the PSP in passing, it was not actually about the PSP.

I'm sure there will be other articles about the PSP very soon. Go ahead and trash PSP in those discusions if you feel you must.

TW

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

toolie (22684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17615560)

Far from trashing the PSP. The fact is Sony used it as part of their convergence strategy, and tried to make it do everything, from playing movies to music, etc. Claiming that gaming on the system was a priority is incorrect. The iPhone competes more directly with the PSP than the DS because of the lack of focus on gaming.

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17617882)

I probably shouldn't be doing this, but I'll bite.

I happen to own a PSP. I have launch games from several studios. Being launch titles, Sony had to court them quite a long time in advance of launch. Sony had to send them dev kits and pre-release hardware. They had to license the games. Despite talk to the contrary, at least two of my launch or near launch titles were not ports of other games. These had to be built from scratch which means Sony had to spend time and effort, maybe money, convincing them that they wouldn't lose their shirts if investors backed the PSP exclusive game.

Now there are shelves full of some really nice PSP titles. More are comming out all the time. If you feel like stopping by your local game store, youll notice that there's a very wide variety, with lots of exclusive games as well as some nice ports. If you pick up a magazine or go to a web site that regularly does PSP reviews, youll see people who play them often find them to be quite fun.

I like convergence quite alot. Until you've taken a long plane trip and been able to watch a movie, play some games, then kick back with your favorite music all without swapping devices, packing power cords to charge them all or having a giant laptop on your tray table, well, you haven't experienced travel the right way. But that's the problem isn't it? Aren't you saying Sony focused on convergence and didn't really focus on games at all?

Bullshit.

The PSP may not be to your taste. I know not everyone likes the style of gaming or layout of controls, or, hell, they even seem to complain that it catchs fingerprints. But saying that this isn't a game machine because it also does convergence is just being thick headed. The truth of the matter is that Sony set out to make a nice game machine and they suceeded. It's a nice enough game machine that it owns a very nice chunk of the market. The fact that Sony also lets you use this game machine to play movies, listen to music and browse the web only means you get extra value for your money.

I dont understand why people would complain about this, but they somehow manage to do so. They say that Sony doesn't care about the games(which take a tremendous amount of energy to negotiat licenses, make dev kits and QA for standards compliance) and only wanted to work on it's picture viewer (no licensees to court and simple software), it's music player (no licensees to court and simple software), it's web browser (no licensees to court, plus it came later) and it's movies (which are mostly Sony-owned movies). I suppose they/you can say anthing they/you want, but when you show me a game machine that has all game controls and no media controls and then you say firmly "Claiming that gaming on the system was a priority is incorrect." well, I just feel a little silly for taking so much time responding. Youve taken the video gaming position equivilent to Intlligent Design. As long as you know the truth, why bother listening to facts?

TW

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17607654)

I'm guessing the iPhone will continue with mobile gaming and not video game play that you see on a DS or PSP. From what I've seen this thing has no buttons. So adding a directional pad and 4 button set up on a touch screen won't catch on. I see Zuma, Tetris, and Bejeweled being played on it. I doubt we will see Castelvania or a FPS. Which is too bad because it would be nice to have one device that does all of this.

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583036)

Apple is leaving themselves some room for improvement so that next year's MacWorld, when they announce a hugely-refined version, they can market the device for those who aren't quite satisfied with the current version.
That's exactly what Apple does. Look at their product history. The first version announces some really radical concept, but it generally sucks. Some people must have said technology and essentially pay for Apple's development costs. Then the next year they have a version that doesn't suck.

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

Lemental (719730) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583936)

And yet when Microsoft announces a new version of the 360, there is an outcry.

Oh wait, I forgot where I am.

Carry on.

Re:Wait for MacWorld 2008 (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586180)

We all know the true reason for not supporting third party apps, the relatively small capacity (4 & 8 gigabytes)

Yeah, because as we all know, no cell phones that allow third party apps have anything smaller than a 32 gig drive. Hell, even the Nintendo DS, with its tiny game cards, has never shipped a game smaller than 96 gigs.

Oh wait.

iPod Games (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17581954)

I imagine that it is capable of playing the games available to the regular iPods from the iTunes Music Store.

Re:iPod Games (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587528)

I thought that too - but they'd have to update the control scheme for the games. Wouldn't be hard though.

FOUR great devices in one package? (4, Insightful)

Cordath (581672) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582076)

While it looks like the iPhone has all the hardware required to make a pretty slick mobile gaming platform, one gets the distinct impression that this just isn't in the cards. If users can't install software then the only games for the iPhone will have to come pre-installed, which pretty much obliterates the possibility of there ever being more than a handful of iPhone games. No third-party software means that what few games there are will all be made by Apple itself, which isn't good news. Apple is many great things, but game developer isn't one of them.

If Jobs sticks to his guns then this really is a lost opportunity for Apple. The iPhone's multiple point touch-screen and accellerometer could have made for a highly innovative portable gaming device even if the iPhone doesn't have the graphics hardware to keep up with other portable gaming devices, similar to how the Wii is highly innovative despite it's lack of cutting edge graphics. Apple could have had *FOUR* great devices in one package instead of just three. I'm sure the iPhone will be hacked and some amateur games will be produced for it, but that's not nearly enough to bring out the fourth latent "killer app" the iPhone could have had.

Re:FOUR great devices in one package? (3, Interesting)

philipgar (595691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583792)

When did jobs say users couldn't install software on the iPhone? If you people RTFA, jobs said that they will not allow users to install random software on the phone, however I see no reason they won't have it open to developers, and after extensive testing of the device, allow users to buy the software on iTunes or something. It would seem perfectly natural to me. Jobs point of not allowing all software to run on it is to avoid the issues that plague computers and such when users install a ton of crap on their machines and wonder why things aren't working right. Limiting what can run on a device that has real time constraints and primary functionality that MUST always work is a perfectly logical idea. Especially considering the thought of iPhone viruses that could spread through bluetooth or something if it was allowed.

Phil

Don't call us; we'll call you. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586374)

however I see no reason they won't have it open to developers

Because they would want to court only commercial developers, not developers who produce free software, freeware, or shareware as a hobby. You can't get a cut of the revenue if a game sells for $0.00. The game console makers have the same mentality.

Re:Don't call us; we'll call you. (1)

philipgar (595691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17596448)

I guess the ipod will miss out on all those great free games out there. All those original new ideas that haven't been done... Oh wait, they don't exist. While their are a few fun open source games (not counting commercial games later open sourced), many of them are just clones of an original game. Think freeciv, pingus, etc.

Open source has its place, and it's yet to show its strength in the gaming world. I don't know if that is possible, as games are so expensive to think up design graphics for, etc etc. While things like OSs are used, there is an obvious link in people having a reason to help better it if they use it. Games... well those are pure entertainment.

The number one advantage that this model gives to apple is that it virtually eliminates piracy of software on the device. All software is installed by them, sure someone may have a hack that lets them install stuff, but it'll be so hard to use, and so obscure it won't really matter. Plus it protects peoples devices.

Now I hope apple has a program allowing some common open source apps such as ssh to run on the device, but if it doesn't, it really only effects the small minority of geeks who would want it. :hil

Does Apple WANT to lose business to Sony? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17598136)

While their are a few fun open source games (not counting commercial games later open sourced), many of them are just clones of an original game. Think freeciv, pingus, etc.

Lemmings, the original game that inspired Pingus, is owned by Sony. This means it's a PS1/PS2/PSP/PS3 exclusive and thus won't show up on an iPhone, iPod, Windows Mobile PDA, or Nintendo DS system. It won't show up on Palm either because Sony no longer makes CLIE. By shutting the door to Free games such as Pingus, Apple and Cingular are driving mobile gamers to carry a cheaper Sony Ericsson phone plus a PSP instead of an iPhone.

Re:Does Apple WANT to lose business to Sony? (1)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17608996)

Why not a DS? March of the mini's *is* Lemmings. For all intents and purposes.

Re:Does Apple WANT to lose business to Sony? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17609936)

Breakfast Pants wrote:

tepples wrote:

philipgar wrote:

While their are a few fun open source games (not counting commercial games later open sourced), many of them are just clones of an original game. Think freeciv, pingus
Lemmings ... is owned by Sony. This means it's a PS1/PS2/PSP/PS3 exclusive
Why not a DS? March of the mini's *is* Lemmings.

In other words, it's a clone, just like all the Free games that philipgar complains about are clones. Besides, this still means mobile gamers will buy a cheap Sony Ericsson phone and a DS (possibly with a SuperCard) instead of Apple and Cingular's product.

Sure...just like the Lynx! (2, Insightful)

GweeDo (127172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582100)

5 hour's when gaming if you are lucky will move it the way of the PSP. It also is priced out of the gaming market even beyond the PSP. Then there is also that pesky fact that Apple has said there won't be a way to install third party apps, so all developers would have to go through Apple for distribution even.

Nintendo is probably about as scared as they were of the N-Gage.

Device integration... blah. (4, Insightful)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582132)

All this device integration is useless. A decent phone (free w/contract), camera ($100) and DS ($130) will do each job better than the iPhone. That's not the point obviously. The iPhone has all of this integrated, but we're talking gaming here. No photographer would decide which cellphone to use as a replacement for their camera, and neither should a gamer. It is inevitable that 5-15 years in the future we will finally have a gaming platform that also happens to be a phone. And then there will be a game that will be great, and you will need that platform to play it. A portable singularity, if you will. But that time is not now, and this is like discussing the Outlook of iPhone Photography. (i.e. Silly).

Certainly from an enthusiast's point of view it would be great if the iPhone was an open platform so you could port Game XYZ to it, but even that isn't the case.

Re:Device integration... blah. (1)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583798)

But that time is not now, and this is like discussing the Outlook of iPhone Photography.

Ok tell you what, let's meet back here in a year and we'll see who's right, you or THE PLANET.

I mean, seriously.

DS off by $70 (0, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586410)

A decent phone (free w/contract), camera ($100) and DS ($130) will do each job better than the iPhone.

The $130 Nintendo DS will not run third-party apps or games, nor will it play movies or music. You need to add the $70 SuperCard/SuperKey kit for those features.

Re:Device integration... blah. (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17589298)

All this device integration is useless. A decent phone (free w/contract), camera ($100) and DS ($130) will do each job better than the iPhone.

...a good theory. Similar theories include "Wordpad or TextEdit is all the wordprocessor most people need, and if you need more you'd be better off with a dedicated DTP program than a bloated jack-of-all-trades like Word". Absolutely true, but reality hasn't caught up yet.

Apple could stick to the "dedicated is best" principle (its been their line in the past) but if reality doesn't agree then that's the iPod/iTunes business down the can. Remember, phone cameras took off (at least in UK/EU) because phone companies pushed them hard in order to get revenue from multimedia messaging services. Try buying a camera-less phone! When they decide that their networks are up to music downloads they might do the same with music (10 "free" tracks a month on your contract anybody?).

Yes folks, the iPhone is Apple hedging their bets - and maybe, just maybe, some if its "deficiencies" are because Apple doesn't really want it to replace people's iPods and MacBooks. They've got in bed with Cingular (one can speculate that they demanded some of the ommissions) because its the carriers that could kill the iPod business.

Incidentally, I don't entirely agree on the camera front: I'm sure that I'm not the only person with two digicams - a fairly bulky "prosumer" one with a decent lens for serious shots and a smaller, cheaper one to carry around just in case. A camera phone can definitely replace the latter.

Likewise, how many people have a small flash-based MP3 player for daily use, and a hard drive model for those occasions when they want their whole music collection? The iPhone could replace the former (as could my SmartPhone if the media players didn't suck so hard).

Maybe they'll add games later. (1)

Zaurus (674150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582162)

Maybe they will add games to it later, like they did with the iPod. Now that they finally added games to the iPod, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw games added to the iPhone some time next year. Maybe with the first big revision.

FYI 3rd Party Probably Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17582188)

According to David Pogue, on NPR's "Science Friday", apple software engineers are saying it is likely third party widgets will be allowed, so everyone saying that it is strictly going to be apple only is reading to much into Job's quotes.

Vote with $$$ (1)

Zaurus (674150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582296)

I'll vote with my wallet. I pledge to buy at least 2 games on my iPhone.

Re:Vote with $$$ (2, Informative)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586300)

I think I'll vote with my wallet, too. You can buy:
- a $500 phone + 2 year service contract with ridiculous data charges.

I'll buy:
- the tiny phone I'm already using ($0)
- a $200 PSP or a $129 DS (Lite), and then spend ~$50-$100 for a 4 gig flash memory card to hold all my wifi-enabled 3rd party apps, homebrew games, and ROM dumps of games I own, dating back to the NES days.

To recap: I'll sit back and play with fun 3rd-party (and 1st-party) toys while you pray to your little statue of Steve Jobs to pleeeease let you do what you want with your phone. Have fun.

mobile mmo (4, Insightful)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17582450)

for now, mobile games are going to continue sticking with the 'little' apps - solitaire, poker, tetris, things like that. While there are some hack-n-slash games out there, I suspect that they don't do as well as the developers would like, especially compared to low commitment games like the above mentioned.

I'm pretty sure the industry is keenly aware and waiting for the day the market for online games to begin showing up on mobile devices. But the tech still isn't there yet. I can't imagine latency over the cellphone being considered a cheap commodity. So things that require twitch gaming (fighters, racers, rogues, co-op shooters) would be unplayable in a mobile online environment. Plus imagine the battery life? How long do you think you can play before your cell phone dies?

The first thing mentioned when my coworkers and I saw the iphone widescreen was, "dude, can you imagine games on that thing?" But what kind of games can you really play? I'm gonna need tactile feedback, flexible controls, and quick reaction time (framerate or latency) in addition to the nice graphics and sound. And considering the price of the device itself, mass market is not really an option, as nobody is going to buy this thing for their children. Remember rpgs for the palm? They did good enough for the 1-man developer, but it wasn't enough to begin to drive an industry to that direction.

iphone gaming isn't goign to make anybody rich - well, that's not true. It will make _somebody_ rich.

Untill something happens with phone companies where bandwidth and latency become dirt dirt cheap, I say the future is still in (currently) wifi gaming. The DS (and the PSP too!) still have a huge potential in that field. A pokemon MMO on the DS or Final Fantasy Online for the PSP == parents worst nightmare. I don't think we are still aware of what the DS/PSP can actaully do. Give it a little more time, and somebody will think of a killer app for those gaming devices. But in the mean time, gaming on the phone will stay small untill the market begins to take notice. And it hasn't noticed yet.

"Tetris" ... "low commitment" ... wha? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586462)

for now, mobile games are going to continue sticking with the 'little' apps - solitaire, poker, tetris, things like that. [...] low commitment games like the above mentioned.

If Tetris is so low commitment, then what's this [youtube.com] and this [youtube.com] and this [youtube.com] and this [youtube.com] ?

Re:"Tetris" ... "low commitment" ... wha? (1)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586956)

you misinterpret what I mean by low commitment. What I mean by low commitment I mean games that don't require an extended learning curve or extended set of rules just to grok the gameplay the designers had in mind. You can pick up and learn the rules for tetris within 5 minutes of play. Same thing with pong. Along with various card games. Computer role playing games like final fantasy or Oblivion, not so much.

You can play a round of tetris, for example while waiting for the bus. Not with RPGs, or even rogues like Diablo. Games like that require a commitment to the gaming session, and/or require you to save that gaming session to continue progress. Those types of games will not be popular, especially for the intended market the games are trying to target.

too expensive to be a player (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17582858)

You remember how $600 was too much for the PS3?

yeah it its too much for a moble game platform too. I dont see how this could scare the DS

Cowboy iPhone SDK (1)

troylanes (883822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583454)

Regardless of whether or not Apple releases an official SDK -- I feel that to most slashdot users the bundled apps will not exploit the iPhone's full potential. What good is a handheld computer with out an ssh client, or vnc client? I've registered iphonesdk.com in response and hopefully with enough intrest/talent/bricked iPhone's we can create a 3rd party SDK and app loader to make all our iWet dreams come true for this device.

just another ipod or a PDA? (1)

abes (82351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17583592)

At first I was outraged by the the fact it was going to be a closed system. I'm still mad, and if there is a petition to sign, I'd sign it, but in the end it's not so surprising given how Apple has treated the IPod.

It's not clear how they'll close their platform. Some people have suggested Widgets might still be usuable, or the fact that you can still play flash games through web pages. For a couple of things, widgets might be good enough .. while I hate javascript, I hear they are fairly versitile. Some current apps I would personally like are: listings of restaurants I like tied in which the google.maps; locate *other* people carrying GPS devices (e.g. trying to find friend in a crowd); a non-SMS chat program; simplified food-ordering program (see seamlessweb.com); python interpreter; simplified database; ebook reader that allows bookmarking and markup of pages; interactive NYC subway map (things like, if a train is down, how the hell do I get there...)

Because there's a web browser, I'm assuming you'll be able to at least d/l apps to it. I'm also told that OS X 10.5 will have signed binaries. So they can restrict use of apps by either requiring them to be signed by Apple, or they can take the approach they did with the IPod, and just make it a pain in the neck to get the apps in (e.g. secret directory + some file you need to edit to add an entry in).

While it's true, 3rd party apps can always make the platform more unstable, at the same time, Apple will never (nor want to) write apps specific to everyone's needs (e.g. NYC subway map). However, some app like that would be invaluable to me. Maybe some compromise of Apple testing some top percent of apps, and allowing them to be d/l'd with some warning of how it will cause you immediate death to just run the app.

Re:just another ipod or a PDA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17583972)

There is a petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/iphone/ [petitiononline.com]

Re:just another ipod or a PDA? (1)

abes (82351) | more than 7 years ago | (#17584264)

Thanks for the info .. I was looking for something like this before without finding any info.. there is also a third party developer who suggests filing a bug report [rentzsch.com] with Apple for there being no support under XCode .. I think it's at least worth a try if enough people file the bug -- at least they'll see it, and have to acknowledge it to some extent. Please mod parent up -- it would be great if more people knew about the petition. I don't actually have high hopes of it working, but at least it's nice to have our voice heard every once in a while.

Re:just another ipod or a PDA? (1)

Coward the Anonymous (584745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17586102)

At first I was outraged by the the fact it was going to be a closed system. I'm still mad, and if there is a petition to sign, I'd sign it, but in the end it's not so surprising given how Apple has treated the IPod.
http://www.petitiononline.com/iphone/ [petitiononline.com]

That Gizmodo demo (1)

bar-agent (698856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17584440)

Hey, that video of the Gizmodo thing, with the augmented reality game, looks pretty awesome! I hadn't realized the techniques involved had gotten that good yet. There is definitely potential there.

augmented reality gaming - problems (1)

S3D (745318) | more than 7 years ago | (#17588928)

There are several augmented reality projects in development now (my own including). The biggest problem is the platform. For augmented reality you need camera with direct API and decent CPU. I'm using Nokia 6600 with 109 mhz CPU and getting around 8 frames per second overall for (multimarker) image recognition + OpenGL [cellagames.com] . It's ok for demo, but little too slow for actual gaming. Latest Nokia phones out of the question - "Symbian Signed" prevent direct access to camera, unless you have phone manufacturer approval. So that left Windows Mobile and Linux phones. However seems most of Linux phones closed platform (correct me if I'm wrong), Trolltech Greenphone still too unstable. That leave Windows Mobile - not quite widespread platform. Again, ok for demo, but probably not big enough to have substantial gaming community. iPhone would be a perfec platform, but alas...

Umm..... (3, Insightful)

crhylove (205956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17584760)

Given that Jobs Vader already said there would be no 3rd party apps for the iPhone, you can take it as a given that some other company will make a clone that does support 3rd party apps (including games), and will dominate the iphone both on price and performance.

Jobs will never learn. You can't expect Apple to suddenly invent all the killer apps (including games!), just because for a brief second in time they have the best interface. The interface will get copied (maybe even improved upon!), and the copy will be cheaper and allow 3rd party apps. Besides which, the "killer app" for an iphone is going to be something that hasn't even been invented yet, and I seriously doubt Mac has a patent on any kind of innovation. Jobs is an arrogant fool. They've already lost this battle. History repeats itself AGAIN. End of Story.

rhY

Re:Umm..... (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17587544)

re:"History repeats itself AGAIN. End of Story."

I'm so glad your picture of reality is so firm. It'll come in handy when it comes crashing down around you. And I'm not talking about the iPhone either.

Oddly enough I would buy it if it ran windows (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17588296)

..or at least emulated it. It can't be that expensive per device for a windows mobile or palm license. Run the main OS as OS X or whatever derivative they come up with, and have palm or windows mobile emulated/virtualized for "compatibility mode", and instantly have access to 1000s of apps. Yah, it's probably much harder than it sounds, but I run alot of medical apps on my pocket pc phone that I would not be willing to lose.

Re:Oddly enough I would buy it if it ran windows (1)

catch23 (97972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17589110)

Oh, and it should run Linux too right? That way I can apt-get 1600 packages including transcode so that I can compress dvds with my spare cycles when i'm not chatting on the phone. I run many apps on my Linux phone that I would not be willing to lose.

Re:Oddly enough I would buy it if it ran windows (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17593326)

No, but the problem would be solved, at least for you, if they allowed 3rd party apps, because then you could just port them yourself or ask the linux community.

who said anything about games? (1, Interesting)

maadlucas (679602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17588940)

I don't really see what the problem is here.

One of the major criticisms i have of most phones is that they try to do too much and do it badly. I have a Motorola A1000 and it's a heap of shit. The only reason i keep it is because it does everything i want it to. However it does it so apallingly that as soon as a phone comes out with similar features that is better i'm going to get it. It looks like the iPhone is that phone.

I also can't understand people criticising His Steveness' decision to have tight control over the platform.

I have a gameboy emulator and a SNES emulator on my A1000. They're both open source and written by god knows who, and they have been known to take my phone down with them. But even in its default configuration my phone can still crash. I think that's the worst thing that could ever happen - having a phone crash? It's an appliance! You wouldn't want to walk into your kitchen, put some food in the oven, set the timer and walk away only to come back to find a BSOD saying "Sorry, this oven has performed an illegal instruction and will be shut down".

Apple doesn't want their new phone to do that. THe idea that a badly written program can take down a network is clearly bollocks, but that doesn't mean there aren't perfectly good reasons for closing the platform. The other really important one is simply a matter of money.

Cellular networks really like lock-in. I've seen phones that have bluetooth that you can only receive from, not send anything. So if you want to send a picture you have to use MMS. This makes them money but pisses off anyone with a clue.

If apple can offer a service that people want to use that the networks can, theoretically, charge for, they're going to have a bargaining chip on their table, and by the looks of things the product isn't nearly finished enough for them to have finalised their negotiations with Cingular on this topic. In that sense cellular providers are complete bastards. I mean, did you see that guy at the Stevenote? i wouldn't have touched his hand with a bargepole let alone shook it.

Someone like apple entering a market for the first time isn't really in a position of power to release an open phone and go "fuck you" to the networks. The iPhone would cost almost as much as a iBook if it were unsibsidised - would you really pay £700 for a phone?

Handset manufacturers need the network providers muscle to get these phones thrown around like fashion statements, and as the market currently stands that's the game that apple is forced to play. If apple didn't do what the networks wanted then the iphone simply would not exist in the market - they need the subsidy.

We've got the luxury in europe (this time) of seeing what pans out with the iPhone technically. Also this quote "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us" from His Steveness kind of reaffirms the pay-for content idea being likely. Anything that gets onto the phone has to go through apple (officially). So look at the iTunes/iPod thing and take it from there - you'll be able to buy things for your phone through iTMS.

One thing that everyone on slashdot has to remember, always, and with everything, is that PEOPLE ARE DUMB. They don't understand stuff like whiting code and openness and all the principled stuff that gets griped about here. Apple is aiming the iPhone squarely at The Masses, and The Masses want a phone that works. Having all and sundry releasing software for the phone will jeopardise its stability and if the phone is seen as being an unstable piece of shit it won't sell. Smartphones are NOT mass-market devices, and apple is trying to MAKE them appealing to The Masses. So with that aim in mind and the fact that apple is obliged to do a deal with one network provider or another means that they has do do things the way a) the network providers want and b) in a way that's going to make them all money and c) will not jeopardise the end user experience of the phone, which is what they're trying to sell it on.

They're not selling it as a gaming platform simply because they've targetted it as a ipod phone that does internet. They're not trying to take on sony or nintendo - look at the n-gage. Furthermore it's a new product and a new market for them and they're being cautious. let them take their time.

Gaming (2, Insightful)

hsa (598343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17589354)

I once had a great Korean device, called GP32. It was way ahead of it's time, and it had open source development enviroment and it was quite developer friendly with active community.

What happened? There was only 1 good commercial game, which I bought: Pinball dreams. There were talks about more, but some Korean company even failed to translate Ashtonia Story (or something like that) because they thought it would not sell. They did however translate it for PSP and it is getting top reviews everywhere and selling pretty good.

So, if you have limited audience, limited quantity gaming platform, how much interrest is that gonna generate from game developers? Next to nothing really.

Then we think about PSP and DS or even GBA. They have nearly unlimited supply of old games, that can be ported to them. PSP has been getting some PS1 titles, DS has atleast Mario 64 and Mario Cart and I am definately going to get FFVI for my GBA. They have .. thousands of games available.

Then let's thinka about gaming in Mac. I have old iBook , and I am not sure should I cry or laugh. There is Myst, Blizzard Games (thank you Blizzard, keep up the wonderful job) and some open source games. That is mostly it. The gaming market on Mac is very, very limited. Can you name some Mac exclusive games? Thought so. And the competitors, they can choose what to port today, and it will most likely sell.

It also seems to lack any 3d capability. Which sucks.

Their best bet would be IMHO to make FULL flash 9 compability and let users play flash games. That is the only way they have large base of games available. Any other option is a sure loss.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?